2 3. The communications of April 2, April 8, May 27, June 11, July 10, September 17, November 14, December 10, December 12, and December 22, 2008, whereby the State referred to compliance with the Judgment. 4. The briefs of March 25, May 12, and October 9, 2008, and March 25, 2009, whereby the representatives presented information regarding compliance with the Judgment as well as their observations on the information submitted by the State (supra Having Seen 3). 5. The communications of May 14, June 12, August 27, and December 2, 2008, and February 13, 2009, whereby the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Commission” or “the Inter-American Commission”) presented its observations of the information submitted by the State and the representatives’ observations (supra Having Seen 3 and 4). CONSIDERING: 1. That it is an inherent power of the judicial functions of the Court to monitor compliance with its decisions. 2. That Ecuador has been a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter, the “Convention” or the “American Convention”) since December 28, 1977, and that it recognized the jurisdiction of the 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.” Therefore, the States must ensure that the rulings set out in the decisions of the Court are implemented at the domestic level.1 4. That, considering Article 67 of the American Convention, which stipulates that the judgment of the Court shall be final and shall not be subject to appeal, such judgment shall be fully and promptly complied with by the State. 5. That the obligation to comply with the rulings of the Court corresponds to a basic principle of law on the international responsibility of the State, supported by international jurisprudence, according to which the States must comply with their international conventional obligations in good faith (pacta sunt servanda) and, as previously held by the Court and pursuant to Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969, States cannot, for domestic order reasons, avoid the international responsibility which has already been established. 2 The conventional obligations of the States Parties bind all powers and organs of the State.3 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 systems. This principle applies not only in connection with the substantive provisions of human rights 1 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 131; Case of Baldeón García v. Perú. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Court of April 3, 2009, Considering clause three; and Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community v. Nicaragua. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Court of April 3, 2009, Considering clause three. 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; Case of Baldeón García v. Perú, supra note 1, Considering clause five, and the Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community v. Nicaragua, supra note 1, Considering clause five. 3 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al., supra note 1, para. 60; Case of Baldeón García v. Perú, supra note 1, Considering clause five; and Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community v. Nicaragua, supra note 1, Considering clause five.

Select target paragraph3