5 21. The brief of the Commission of December 21, 2005, in which it indicated that: (a) “It appreciated the State’s compliance with the obligation to pay the interest on arrears and, consequently, found that the State has complied with its obligation regarding one of the decisions of the judgment on reparations”; (b) “The State has not complied with its obligation to conduct an effective investigation to identify and punish those responsible for the facts, 17 years after the massacre occurred,” and (c) “It reiterates the position expressed in its brief of October 13, 2005 (supra Having seen paragraph 17), in which it requested the Court to require the State to take concrete actions to allow the investigations to be re-opened, granting the civil jurisdiction authority to conduct proceedings to determine responsibilities and establish the corresponding sanctions.” 22. The note of the Secretariat of January 23, 2006, in which it requested the State to forward, by January 31, 2006, at the latest, appropriate vouchers authenticating the payment made by the State to the victims or to their next of kin, in compliance with the judgment on reparations delivered by the Court in this case. The communication of the State of January 27, 2006, and its attachments, 23. with which it forwarded copy of Judicial Inspection No. 473-05 “made by the Civil, Mercantile, Agrarian, Transit and Banking Court of First Instance of the Judicial Circuit of the state of Apure-Guasdualito on November 30, 2005, certifying the cancellation procedure carried out by the Venezuelan State” to the [successors] and survivors of the tragedy [of El] Amparo, for interest on arrears […], recording all those who received the respective payment. Also, on the instructions of the President of the Court, the State was requested to forward, by February 17, 2006, at the latest, information authenticating the payment that corresponded to each of the beneficiaries who did not attend the said procedure. 24. The communication of the State of February 6, 2006, and its attachments, with which it forwarded copies of “the final settlement certificates” signed by the beneficiaries of the payments. CONSIDERING: 1. That one of the inherent attributes of the jurisdictional functions of the Court is to monitor compliance with its decisions. 2. That the State of Venezuela has been a State Party to the American Convention since August 9, 1977, and accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court on June 24, 1981. 3. That Article 68(1) of the American Convention stipulates 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.” To this end, the States must ensure the implementation at the domestic level of the rulings of the Court in its decisions.1 1 Cf. Case of the Constitutional Court. Compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 7, 2006, third considering paragraph; Case of the 19 Tradesmen.