2 15. […] pay compensation for pecuniary damages to De Belén Areco and Pedro Vargas in the amount set in paragraph 148 of the […] Judgment, under the terms of paragraphs 168 and 174 thereof[;] 16. […] pay compensation for non-pecuniary damages to De Belén Areco, Pedro Vargas, and Juan, María Elisa, Patricio, Daniel, Doralicia, Mario, María Magdalena, Sebastián, and Jorge Ramón, all of them Vargas-Areco, in the amount set in paragraph 151 of the […] Judgment, under the terms of paragraphs 168 and 174 thereof[, and] 17. […] pay the amount set in paragraph 167 of the […] Judgment on account of costs and expenses incurred as a result of the proceedings started before the domestic jurisdiction and the Inter-American system for the protection of human rights, amount which is to be delivered to De Belén Areco and to Pedro Vargas, under the terms of paragraphs 168 and 174 of the Judgment. […] 2. The communications of August 16 and October 17, 2007 and those of February 21, April 15, and July 30, 2008, whereby Paraguay reported the actions taken in compliance with the Judgment delivered in the instant case. 3. The briefs of December 6, 2007; March 17 and September 15, 2008; whereby the victim’s representatives (hereinafter “the representatives”) submitted their observations on compliance with the Judgment rendered in the instant case. 4. The communications of April 15 and October 13, 2008, whereby the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Commission” or “the Inter-American Commission”) submitted its observations on compliance with Judgment. CONSIDERING: 1. That monitoring compliance with its decisions is a power inherent in the judicial functions of the Court. 2. That Paraguay has been a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter the “American Convention”) since August 24, 1989 and accepted the binding jurisdiction of the Court on March 26, 1993. 3. That Article 68(1) of the American Convention sets forth that “[t]he States Parties to the Convention undertake to comply with the judgment of the Court in any case to which they are parties.” For that purpose, the States must guarantee the adoption at the domestic level of the provisions set by the Court in its decisions.1 1 Cf. Case of Baena-Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 131; Case of Goiburú et al. v. Paraguay. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of August 6, 2008, Considering clause 3 and Case of Servellón-García et al. v.