8 against her security and physical and emotional stability, for which reason she solicits that the Court take relevant measures to end the hostilities and defamation campaigns and threats against [her] physical and mental integrity. In the same manner, that it call for adequate actions so that the State of Peru observes the Order emitted by this Honorable Court. CONSIDERING: 1. That on June 14, 1999, the Second Transitional Criminal Court of the Supreme Court of Peru emitted an order that declared that this Tribunal’s November 27, 1998 Judgment on Reparations was “unenforceable.” That order stated that “the petitioners did not fulfill the requirement of exhaustion of domestic jurisdiction so as to resort to the Inter-American jurisdiction.” 2. That, in reference to the argument contained in the cited order concerning the failure to exhaust internal remedies, this Court decided in the January 31, 1996 Judgment on Preliminary Objections to reject the objection interposed by Peru. 3. That, despite the order in the above referenced Judgment on Preliminary Objections, the State alleged, in the proceeding on the merits of the case, the “inadmissibility of the application due to the lack of the exhaustion of domestic remedies,” an argument that was rejected on grounds of “gross impropriety” in the Judgment on the Merits rendered on September 17, 1997. 4. That Peru interposed, on March 2, 1999, an application for interpretation of the Judgment on Reparations, an interpretation that was rendered by the Court in its Judgment of June 3, 1999. This procedural conduct of the State is manifestly contradictory to the subsequent decision of the internal organs to declare the abovecited judgment to be “unenforceable” and, its resulting noncompliance. 5. That Article 67 of the American Convention on Human Rights establishes that “the judgment of the Court shall be final and not subject to appeal. In case of disagreement as to the meaning or scope of the judgment, that Court shall interpret it at the request of any of the parties, provided the request is made within ninety days from the date of notification of the judgment.” 6. That Article 68(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights 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.” The conventional obligations of the States Parties bind all of the authorities and organs of the State. 7. That this obligation corresponds to a basic principle of the law of international state responsibility, supported by international jurisprudence, according to which States must fulfill their conventional international obligations in good faith (pacta sunt servanda) and, as the Court has already stated, can not for reasons of domestic law fail to assume already established international responsibility.(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).