4 18, May 19, May 28, September 17 and September 24, 2008, asking the State to provide information on the status of compliance with the judgment, and requesting the representatives and the Commission to forward their respective observations on monitoring compliance with the judgment. CONSIDERING: 1. That an inherent attribute of the jurisdictional functions of the Court is to monitor compliance with its decisions. 2. That Ecuador has been a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the American Convention” or “the Convention”) since December 28, 1977, and accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court on July 24, 1984. 3. That Article 68(1) of the American Convention stipulates 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.” To this end, the State must ensure implementation at the national level of the Court’s decisions in its judgments.1 4. That, in view of the final and unappealable nature of the judgments of the Court, as established in Article 67 of the American Convention, the State should comply with them fully and promptly. 5. 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, a party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty. The treaty obligations of the States Parties are binding for all the powers and organs of the State.2 6. That the States Parties to the Convention must ensure compliance with its provisions and their inherent effects (effet utile) within their respective domestic legal system. This principle is applicable not only with regard to the substantive norms of human rights treaties (that is, those which contain provisions concerning the protected rights), but also with regard to procedural norms, such as those referring to compliance with the decisions of the Court. These obligations shall be interpreted and applied so that the protected guarantee is truly practical and effective, bearing in mind the special nature of human rights treaties.3 1 Cf. Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 131; Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz v. Peru. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Court of April 28, 2009, third considering paragraph; and Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Court of April 29, 2009, third considering paragraph. 2 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; Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz v. Peru. Monitoring compliance with judgment, supra nota 1, fifth considering paragraph; and Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador. Monitoring compliance with judgment, supra nota 1, fifth considering paragraph. 3 Cf. Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Competence. Judgment of September 24, 1999. Series C No. 54, para. 37; Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz v. Peru. Monitoring compliance with judgment, supra nota 1, sixth considering paragraph; and Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador. Monitoring compliance with judgment, supra nota 1, sixth considering paragraph.