4 B) Request for Provisional Measures 12. The brief and the annex received on April 15, 2009, in which the representative submitted to the Inter-American Court a request for the adoption of provisional measures, for the State “to refrain from depriving of liberty” Mrs. De La Cruz Flores “for considerations that collid[e] with [the] Judgment [in the present case]” and as a consequence of the supposed “condemnatory character of [a] Judgment [of the Supreme Court of Justice] and the [possible] increase in the punishment issued against the victim in the second process followed against her in the national jurisdiction.” In communications of May 4, June 23, November 15 and 24, December 7, 2009, and February 15, 2010, the representative referred to this request again. 13. The notes of the Secretary of April 30, May 6, June 10, and October 14, 2009, through which, following the instruction of the Court in full, requested the representative and the State that, in the event that the Supreme Court of the Judicial Branch of the Republic of Peru issued any Judgment in the case No. 4681-2006, it shall be submitted to the Tribunal as soon as possible. 14. The briefs of April 22, 23 and 27, June 30, November 30, and December 15, 2009, and its annexes; and of January 19 and April 22, 2009, through which the State informed about the request for Provisional Measures presented by the representative. 15. The communication of April 22, and December 15 and 17, 2009; in which the Inter-American Commission referred to the request for provisional measures in favor of Mrs. De La Cruz Flores. CONSIDERING THAT: A) Monitoring Compliance with Judgment 1. It is an attribution inherent to the jurisdictional functions of the Court, to supervise the compliance with its decisions. 2. Peru is a State party to the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the American Convention” or “the Convention”) since July 28, 1978, and acknowledged the adjudicatory jurisdiction of the Court on January 21, 1981. 3. 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”. The treaty obligations of the State parties bind all the branches or functions of the State.2 4. By virtue of the final and definitive character of the Judgments of the Court, according to that established on Article 67 of the American Convention, they shall be promptly fulfilled by the State in a complete manner. 5. The obligation to comply with that established in the decisions of the Tribunal corresponds to a basic principle of the law of international State responsibility, supported by international jurisprudence; according to which the States shall fulfill their international treaty obligations in good faith (pacta sunt servanda) and, as it has been already established by this Court and as it is stated by Article 27 of the Vienna 2 Cf. Case of Castillo Petruzzi and others V. Perú. Supervision of Compliance with the Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 17, 1999. Series C No. 59, Considering third; Case of Baena Ricardo et al. V. Panamá. Supervision of Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 28, 2010, Considering fifth, and Case of Vargas Areco V. Paraguay. Supervision of Compliance with the Judgment. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 20, 2010, Considering fourth.