3 1. To declare that, pursuant to the pacta sunt servanda principle, and in accordance with the provisions of Article 68(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights, the State has the obligation to comply promptly with all aspects of the judgments of August 16, 2000, and December 3, 2001, delivered by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in the case of Durand and Ugarte. 2. To require the State to investigate, prosecute and punish those responsible for the facts. 3. To require the State to continue taking all possible measures to find and identify the remains of Nolberto Durand Ugarte and Gabriel Pablo Ugarte Rivera and to deliver them to their next of kin, as ordered in subparagraph (d) of the fourth operative paragraph of the judgment on reparations. […] 4. The reports of the State of Peru (hereinafter “the State” or “Peru”) on the progress made in complying with the judgment, submitted on November 29 and December 19, 2002; June 12 and September 5, 2003; May 6, June 29, July 15, July 26 and September 20, 2004; January 11, February 21 and April 15, 2005; April 25, June 14, August 18 and September 4, 2006; July 9 and December 18, 2007. 5. The observations of the representatives of the victims (hereinafter “the representatives”) on the State’s reports on compliance submitted on September 11, 2003; May 24, August 17 and November 12, 2004; September 7, 2007, and May 13, 2008. 6. The observations of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Commission” or “the Inter-American Commission”) on the State’s reports on compliance submitted on September 8, 2003; June 7 and November 12, 2004; April 6 and May 27, 2005; September 14, 2007 and March 27, 2008. CONSIDERING: 1. That one of the inherent attributes of the jurisdictional functions of the Court is to monitor compliance with its decisions. 2. That Peru has been a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” or “the American Convention”) since July 28, 1978, and accepted the obligatory jurisdiction of the Court on January 21, 1981. 3. That the obligation to comply with the decisions in the Court’s judgments corresponds to a basic principle of the law of the international responsibility of the State, supported by international case law, according to which, a State must comply with its international treaty obligations in good faith (pacta sunt servanda) and, as this Court has already indicated and as established in Article 27 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, the State may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty.1 The treaty obligations of the States Parties are binding on all the powers and organs of the State. 1 Cf. International Responsibility for the Promulgation and Enforcement of Laws in Violation of the Convention (Arts. 1 and 2 American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-14/94 of December 9, 1994. Series A No. 14, para. 35; Fermín Ramírez v. Guatemala. Monitoring compliance; Raxcacó Reyes v. Guatemala. Monitoring compliance. Case of Raxcacó-Reyes et al. Provisional measures with regard to Guatemala. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 9, 2008, fourth considering paragraph; Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 8, 2008, fifth considering paragraph; and Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. Compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 17, 1999. Series C No. 59, fourth considering paragraph.