commitments in the draft 2010 budget, to be paid in 2011” because, owing to “a decline in the country’s revenue, the national budget had been restructured, and it was not possible to include the payment of these commitments [in the restructured budget].” 33. The representatives underlined that “the National Assembly, as the body responsible for drafting and approving the Nation’s budget for the fiscal year […], has the power granted by the Constitution to authorize additional credits.” Hence, the representatives asked the Inter-American Court to urge the State to “approve an additional credit for the payment of the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, and the reimbursement of costs and expenses, and thus, fulfill [its obligations]” within three months. 34. The Commission hoped that the obstacles to making the payments, including the corresponding interest on arrears, could be overcome as soon as possible and asked the Court to urge the State to comply with the pertinent payments. 35. In this regard, the Court notes that the information provided by the State indicated that the respective payments would be made during the current year; however, it has not provided subsequent information proving compliance with this obligation. Consequently, the Court requests the State to present recent complete and detailed information, with copies of the corresponding documents, on the measures taken to comply with these aspects of the judgment. h) Regarding the State’s obligation to report on the measures taken 36. According to the Secretariat’s note of October 20, 2010 (supra having seen paragraph 6), the State was supposed to submit a report on the measures taken to comply with the pending obligations ordered by the Court in its judgment, by December 6, 2010, at the latest. However, despite the requests made in notes sent by the Court’s Secretariat, the State has not submitted any information regarding compliance with the judgment. Consequently, the Court lacks recent information on all the aspects pending compliance. 37. Also, in the Court’s order of July 7, 2009 (supra having seen paragraph 2), the State was requested, inter alia, to submit to the Court “by October 10, 2009, at the latest, a timetable for compliance with the aspects ordered in the judgment, establishing specific time frames. Also, by that date, the State must submit to the Court the judgment delivered on June 5, 2009, in the criminal case on the disappearance of Mr. Blanco Romero.”17 The State did not comply with these requests. The judgment delivered on June 5, 2009, was sent to the Court by the representatives who also presented updated information on that criminal proceeding (supra having seen paragraph 4). 38. In the absence of adequate information from the State, this Court cannot exercise its function of monitoring execution of its judgments. It is pertinent to recall that the Court has established the State’s obligation to provide sufficient information on the measures taken to this end,18 and the OAS General Assembly has reiterated that, for the 17 Case of Blanco Romero et al. v. Venezuela, supra note 11, second operative paragraph. 18 Cf. Case of the Five Pensioners v. Peru. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of November 17, 2004, fifth considering paragraph, and Case of Montero Aranguren et al. (Retén de Catia) v. Venezuela. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of August 30, 2011, ninth considering paragraph. 10