4 4. The communications filed by the representatives of the victim (hereinafter “the representatives”) on March 20, 2006 and June 7, 2007, whereby the representatives reported that: a) they are “disconcerted by the amount of time that has passed without the effective compliance with the Judgment, with the exception of the payment of expenses accrued during the international proceedings”; b) they consider that “non-compliance of international judgments violates due process of law”; c) four and a half years have passed without effective compliance with the Judgment; d) “treaty obligations of States Parties bind all powers or functions of the State, such that a State official cannot deny responsibility by demonstrating that he carried out his function and that it is another State official that did not do his part. Even if such is the case, it continues to be the State Party who did not comply with its international responsibility”, and e) “they believe that the […] Court should determine and apply a sanction to the State for allowing, by the way it acted, the non-compliance of the international judgment within a reasonable timeframe”. 5. The communications submitted by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Commission” or “the Inter-American Commission”) on April 20, 2006 and June 26, 2007, whereby the Commission reported that: a) in their last communication “the State only presented information regarding the two communications sent by the Attorney General’s Office (“Procuración del Tesoro de la Nación”) to the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights, consulting them about the developments in the compliance procedure of the Judgment dictated by the Inter-American Court.” In this respect, the Commission recognized that “compliance requires that different State entities and domestic proceedings be involved. However, before the Tribunal and in the inter-American proceedings, the responsibility of the State is undivided”; b) “it values that the State took the necessary actions to finalize and issue Presidential Decree No. 99/06 that orders a course of action aimed at complying with the reparations ordered by the Court.” However, “it is necessary to point out that the measures ordered do not refer to the direct fulfillment of the reparations ordered, but rather to procedures directed to fulfill them that still need to be orchestrated and completed”; c) “it observes with concern that nearly all of the reparation measures ordered by the Court are unfulfilled” and that “the State has not offered any information regarding the advances that could have been made in the course of the last two years to carry out the Court’s orders”, and d) “it requests that the Court require the State to report on the Executive Branch’s precise timeline and planned schedule for compliance with the pending measures.”