[…] the Court takes note of the “official record of the agreements” signed by
the representatives and the members of the Community, the State and the Commission on
[…], in which it was agreed […] that:
1) The State, within a time limit not to exceed two months, shall determine the claim
made by the “Ten Communities” in connection with the Regional Council Resolution dated
February 14, 2007.
2) Once the aforementioned decision be rendered, within a time limit not to exceed
forty days, the boundary marking phase shall be ended.
3) Immediately following that, the title to the ancestral lands of the Community will
be drawn up and approved, observing the statutory procedures. The parties estimated
that title would be conveyed to the Awas Tingni Community during the month of August,

The briefs filed on October 31, 2008 and December 22, 2008, whereby the State reported
on the stage compliance with the Judgment had reached.
The briefs filed on December 2, 2008 and January 9, 2009, whereby the representatives
forwarded their comments on the report by the State, as regards monitoring compliance with the
The briefs filed on March 6, 2009, whereby the Commission forwarded its comments on the
report by the State, as regards monitoring compliance with the Judgment.
That monitoring the compliance with its decisions is an inherent jurisdictional power of the
That Nicaragua has been a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights
(hereinafter, the “American Convention” or “the Convention”) since September 25, 1979, and
that it accepted the binding jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court on February 12, 1991.
That Article 68(1) of the American Convention establishes 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 ensure the implementation, within their jurisdictions,
of the orders issued by the Court in its decisions.1
That since the Court Judgments are final and not subject to appeal, pursuant to the
provisions in Article 67 of the American Convention, the State must diligently and fully comply
with them.
That the obligation to comply with the decisions of the Court is a basic principle of law
regarding the international responsibility of the State, which is supported by international
jurisprudence, according to which the States must comply with their international conventional
obligations in good faith (pacta sunt servanda) and that, as this Court has pointed out and
pursuant to Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969, the States may
not, due to reasons of a domestic order, avoid the international responsibility which has already
Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panamá. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104,
para. 131; Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Perú. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Court of February 27,
2009, Considering Clause Number Four; and Case of Suárez Rosero v. Ecuador. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment.
Order of the Court of March 20, 2009, Considering Clause Number Three.

Select target paragraph3