5 16. On August 22 and November 5, 2001, the State furnished information concerning the progress made toward fulfillment of the judgment on the merits delivered in the instant case and on the measures taken to fulfill the commitment the State had made at the public hearing to submit a reparations proposal. 17. On November 26, 2001, the State forwarded to the Court the “Agreement for full reparations to the next of kin of the victims in the Durand and Ugarte case” (hereinafter “the agreement” or “the reparations agreement”), which the State, the victims’ next of kin and their representatives had signed in Lima, Peru that very day. 18. Following instructions from the Court, on November 28, 2001, the Secretariat informed the Inter-American Commission that from the document sent to the Court, it appeared that the Commission had neither signed the agreement nor participated in its transmission to the Court. Given the terms of clause eleven of the agreement, the Court requested the Commission’s view on the agreement. The Court also indicated that if no response were forthcoming within 48 hours, it would assume that the Commission was in agreement with the reparations settlement. 19. On November 30, 2001, the Commission filed a brief wherein it informed the Court that it concurred with the reparations agreement concluded between the State, the victims’ next of kin and their representatives. IV OBLIGATION TO MAKE REPARATIONS REPARATIONS AGREEMENT 20. The applicable norm in the matter of reparations is Article 63(1) of the American Convention, which reads as follows: If the Court finds that there has been a violation of a right or freedom protected by the Convention, the Court shall rule that the injured party be ensured the enjoyment of his right or freedom that was violated. It shall also rule, if appropriate, that the consequences of the measures or situation that constituted the breach of such right or freedom be remedied and that fair compensation be paid to the injured party. (emphasis added). 21. Article 56 of the Rules of Procedure reads as follows: 1. When no specific ruling on reparations has been made in the judgment on the merits, the Court shall set the time and determine the procedure for the deferred decision thereon. 2. If the Court is informed that the parties to the case have reached an agreement in regard to the execution of the judgment on the merits, it shall verify the fairness of the agreement and rule accordingly. 22. The agreement reached among the State, the victims’ next of kin and their representatives was submitted to the Court at that point in the reparations phase when all the formalities and procedures prior to pronouncement of judgment had been completed. Because the issue of reparations is not in dispute, the Court has decided to examine the reparations agreement concluded. 23. It is the Court’s function to evaluate whether the reparations agreement is in keeping with the pertinent provisions of the American Convention and verify whether