6. The communication of September 21, 2012, in which the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights presented its observations on the information provided by the State and by the representative (supra having seen paragraphs 3 and 4), and the communication of October 17, 2012, in which the Commission indicated that it did not have any additional observations to make in relation to the content of the compact disc forwarded by the State on August 6, 2012 (supra having seen paragraph 3). CONSIDERING THAT: 1. One of the inherent attributes of the jurisdictional functions of the Court is to monitor compliance with its decisions. 2. In accordance with the provisions of Article 67 of the American Convention, the State must comply fully and promptly with the Court's judgments. Furthermore, 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 that the provisions of the Court’s judgments are implemented at the domestic level. 1 3. The States Parties to the Convention that have accepted the binding jurisdiction of the Court have the duty to comply with the obligations established by the Court. This obligation includes the State’s duty to inform the Court of the measures taken to comply with the decisions of the Court in its judgments. Prompt observance of the State’s obligation to inform the Court of the way in which it is complying with each aspect ordered by the Court is essential in order to evaluate the status of compliance with the judgment as a whole.2 A. Obligation to adopt, within a reasonable time, the necessary measures for the mother of Pedro Miguel Vera Vera to know what happened to her son (second operative paragraph of the Judgment) A.1. Information from the State 4. It indicated that, in accordance with the “Compliance Agreement” signed on August 15, 2011, with Francisca Mercedes Vera Valdez, mother of Pedro Miguel Vera Vera, and her representative, Ecuador undertook to prepare two “Official Reports,” one by the Ministry of Justice, Human Rights and Worship (hereinafter “the Ministry of Justice” or “the MJDHC”), and another by the Ministry of the Interior “on the detention conditions of Mr. Vera Vera and the measures taken by State agents with regard to his health [sic].” In this regard, it indicated that the Human Rights Directorate of the Ministry of Justice had “prepared a chronological report on the facts” based on an official document of the National Police and of “the Health Centers where Mr. Vera Vera was admitted.” This report was presented to Mrs. Vera Valdez at a meeting on June 29, 2012, and, according to the State, “she 1 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 60, y Case of Barrios Altos v. Peru. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 7, 2012, third considering paragraph. 2 Cf. Case of Barrios Altos v. Peru. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 22, 2005, seventh considering paragraph, and Case of Mejía Idrovo v. Ecuador. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 4, 2012, third considering paragraph. 2