c) Payment of the compensation for non-pecuniary damage corresponding to Marcos Ramírez Álvarez (fourteenth operative paragraph of the judgment) […], and d) Publication in a national newspaper, once, of the chapter of the judgment on the proven facts, without the corresponding footnotes, and the operative paragraphs of the judgment (sixteenth operative paragraph of the judgment) […]; 3. The communications of the State of Peru of February 1, 2012, and September 11, 2013, wherein it made reference to its compliance with the Judgment. 4. The briefs of the representatives of the victims (hereinafter “the representatives”) of April 3, 2012, and October 6, 2013, wherein they provided their observations in regard to the status of the compliance with the Judgment. 5. The communications of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Commission” or “the Inter-American Commission”) of June 18, 2012, and November 12, 2013, wherein it provided its observations in regard to the status of compliance with the Judgment. CONSIDERING THAT: 1. One of the inherent attributes of the jurisdictional functions of the Court is to monitor compliance with its decisions. 2. Peru became a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights since July 28, 1978 and acknowledged the jurisdiction of the Court on January 21, 1981. 3. Given the final and non-appealable nature of the Court’s judgments, as established in Article 67 of the American Convention, the State must comply fully and promptly with the judgments of the Court. Also, 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.” To this end, the State must ensure implementation at the national level of the Court’s decisions in its judgments. 1 4. The obligation to comply with the decisions in the Court’s judgments corresponds to a basic principle of the law of the international responsibility of the State, supported by international case law, according to which, States must comply with their 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 perform a treaty 2. The treaty obligations of the States Parties are binding for all the powers and organs of the State. 3 1 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. V. Panamá. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 60, and Case of Castañeda Gutman V. México. Monitoring of Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of August 28, 2013, 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, and Case of Castañeda Gutman V. México. Monitoring of Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of August 28, 2013, Considering clause four. 3 Cf. Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. V. Peru. Monitoring of Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 17, 1999, Considering clause three, and Case of 2