3 2. That it will keep the proceeding on monitoring compliance in this case open, with regard to the following matters that are pending compliance: a) The setting up of a trust fund in favor of the minor, Micaela Suárez Ramadán [...]; and b) The investigation and punishment of the persons responsible for the human rights violations declared by the Court, as stated in the sixth considering clause, subparagraph (e) of the […] Order. 6. The different reports of the State of Ecuador (hereinafter “the State”) regarding its progress in the compliance of the Judgments on merits and reparations (supra Having Seen paragraphs 1 and 2). 7. The observations of the representatives of the victim and his next of kin (hereinafter “the representatives”) and of the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Commission” or “the Inter-American Commission”) to the state’s report on compliance (supra Having Seen paragraph 6). CONSIDERING: 1. That one of the inherent attributes of the jurisdictional functions of the Court is to monitor compliance with its decisions. 2. That 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.” Consequently, the State must ensure the implementation of the decisions in the Court’s judgments at the domestic level.1 3. That the obligation to comply with the decisions in the Court’s judgments corresponds to a basic principle of the law on the international responsibility of the State, supported by international case law, according to which a State must fulfill 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 assume a previously established international responsibility.2 The treaty obligations of the States Parties are binding for all the powers and organs of the State. 4. 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 is applicable with regard not only to the substantive norms of human rights treaties (that is, those that include stipulations on the protected rights), but also to the procedural norms, such as those referring to compliance with the 1 Cfr. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 131; Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 2, 2007, Considering Clause number 2, and Case of Yatama. Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 29, 2006, Considering Clause number 3. 2 Cfr. International Responsibility for the Promulgation and Enforcement of Laws in Violation of the Convention (Arts. 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 the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 2, 2005, Considering clause number 3 and Case of Yatama. Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 29, 2006, Considering Clause number 5.