2 4. The brief of May 29, 2009, whereby the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter, the “Commission” or the "Inter-American Commission") submitted its observations to the report of the State and the observations presented by the representatives. 5. The Order of the Court’s President of April 20, 2010, by which a private hearing was convened to be held on May 26, 2010, within the framework of the LXXXVII Ordinary Period of Sessions of the Tribunal, so that the Inter-American Court receives from the State complete and updated information on the compliance with all the measures of reparation ordered in the Judgment delivered in the instant case and listens to the respective observations of the Inter-American Commission and the representatives. 6. The private hearing held on May 26, 2010, at the seat of the Tribunal1. CONSIDERING THAT: 1. It is an inherent power of the judicial functions of the Court to monitor compliance with its decisions. 2. Panama has been a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter, the “American Convention” or the “Convention”) since June 22, 1978, and that it accepted the binding jurisdiction of the Court on May 9, 1990. 3. Pursuant to article 67 of the American Convention, State parties must fully comply with the judgments entered by the Court in time fashion. Furthermore, 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 level2. 4. The obligation to comply with the rulings of the Court conforms to a basic principle of the law on the international responsibility of States, endorsed by international case-law, under which States are required to fulfill their international treaty obligations in good faith (pacta sunt servanda) and, as previously held by the Court and provided for in article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969, States cannot invoke their municipal laws to escape from their pre-established International responsibility. Treaty obligations of States Parties are binding on all State powers and organs3. 5. The States Parties to the Convention must ensure compliance with its conventional 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 treaties (i.e. those dealing with provisions on protected 1 To this hearing, there appeared, on behalf of the State of Panama: Director of the Human Rights Department of the Bureau of Legal Affairs and Treaties of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Mariela Vega de Donoso; Lawyer of the Bureau of Legal Affairs and Treaties of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Anethe Vergara; and Ambassador of Panama to Costa Rica, Ambassador José Javier Mulino. On behalf of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights: Specialist of the Executive Secretary, Lilly Ching Soto. On behalf of the victim’s representatives: Patria Portugal, Alejandra Nuño, Marcela Martino, Gisela De León and Marcia Aguiluz, of the Center for Justice and International Law, CEJIL. 2 See Case of Baena Ricardo et al. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para 60; Case of Cesti Hurtado V Perú. , Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 4, 2010, considering clause three and case of El Amparo V. Venezuela. Monitoring Compliance with the Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 4, 2010, Considering Clause three. 3 See International Responsibility for the Promulgation and Enforcement of Laws in Violation of the Convention (articles 1 and 2 of the American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-14/94 of December 9, 1994, Series A Nº.14, para. 35; Case of Cesti Hurtado, supra note 2, Considering clause five; and case of El Amparo, supra note 2, considering clause five.