2 Declar[ed]: 1. That […] the State ha[d] failed to comply with its obligation to report to this Court on the measures adopted to comply with the operative paragraphs of the Judgment on the merits, reparations and costs passed on November 22, 2005. 2. That it [would] maintain the monitoring process of compliance with all the reparation issued by this Court in said Judgment open. And decide[d]: 1. To require the State to adopt all the measures necessary to comply effectively and promptly with the operative paragraphs of the Judgment on merits, reparations, and costs in the present case, pursuant to that stipulated in Article 68(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights. 2. To request the State to present to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, no later than February 8, 2008, a report indicating all measures adopted in compliance of the orders issued by this Court. 3. The comments of the Secretariat of the Court (hereinafter, “the Secretariat”) of February 19, March 24, May 12, July 17 and August 27, 2008, whereby, pursuant to the instructions of the President of the Court (hereinafter, “the President”), it requested the Republic of Peru (hereinafter, “the State” or “Peru”) to send the report requested by the Court in Operative Paragraph No. 2 of the Order of October 18, 2007 (supra Having Seen clause No. 2). 4. The brief received on November 11, 2008, whereby the State filed its first report on progress made regarding compliance with the Judgment. 5. The communication of December 22, 2008, whereby the representatives of the victim (hereinafter, “the representatives”) raised their observations to the first report of the State. 6. The brief of February 13, 2009, whereby the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights (hereinafter, “the Commission” or “the Inter-American Commission”) filed its observations to the first report of the State and the brief of the representatives. 7. The note of the Secretariat of May 26, 2009, whereby, pursuant to the instructions of the President, the State was requested to submit certain information regarding the payments ordered in the Judgment. 8. The communication of the State of June 3, 2009, whereby it submitted the requested information (supra Having Seen clause No. 7). 9. The communication of June 16, 2009, whereby the Inter-American Commission filed its observations to the information sent by the State (supra Having Seen clause No. 8). The representatives did not file observations. CONSIDERING: 1. That monitoring compliance with its decisions is a power inherent to the jurisdictional function of the Court. 2. That Peru has been a State Party to the American Convention since July 28, 1978, and recognized the Court’s binding jurisdiction on January 21, 1981. 3. That Article 68(1) of the American Convention sets forth that “[t]he State Parties to the Convention undertake to comply with the judgment of the Court in any case to which