7 f. “the object and purpose of the Convention is to establish an InterAmerican system of protection wherein the rights and freedoms enumerated are made fully effective, as is suggested in its preamble. Therefore, the organs of the State are obligated to respect them and ensure them in accordance with Article 1(1) of the Convention”; g. the judgments of the Court should be observed in an immediate and integral manner; if they had to conform to the internal legislation of the States Parties to be enforceable, the protection of the International Law of Human Rights would become illusory and would be left to the sole discretion of the State and not to the supranational organ whose judgments should be fulfilled in good faith by the States; h. the supremacy of the international obligations of the State over internal law constitutes one of the pillars of general Public International Law, as set forth in Article 27 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties; i. the principle pacta sunt servanda, codified in Article 26 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, establishes that “[e]very treaty in force is binding upon the parties to it and must be performed by them in good faith.” The State should observe the judgments adopted in accordance with the norms of the Inter-American system and the principles of International Law; j. Article 68(2) of the American Convention on Human Rights establishes that the part of the judgment that stipulates compensatory damages may be executed in the country concerned in accordance with the domestic procedure governing the execution of judgments against the State; and k. Law 23.506 on Habeas Corpus and Amparo and the Law of the Judicial Power, both in force in Peru, “suggest” that the judgments of this Court have complete legal validity and effectiveness in the internal jurisdiction of the State and are enforceable without the need to review their compatibility with domestic law. For the above reasons, the Commission requested that the Court: a. reject as inadmissible the submission of the State and require the execution of the operative paragraphs of the November 27, 1998 Judgment; and b. proceed to inform the Secretary General of the OAS and the States Parties to the American Convention on Human Rights about this matter. Moreover, adopt the request of the victim that measures be adopted that assure compliance with the Judgment on Reparations. 15. The writing of the victim, received in the Secretariat of the Court on September 23, 1999, in which reference is made to the final decisions adopted by Peru concerning the judgments rendered by the Inter-American Court, and the declarations made by the high authorities of the Government with respect to her situation. She adds that, as a consequence of these facts, there is a latent threat