3 9. The “Official record of the agreements reached between the legal representatives of the State of Nicaragua and the Awas Tingni Community in Mayagna Awas Tingni Community v. Nicaragua” (hereinafter “the official record of the agreements”), signed by the victims and their representatives, the State, and the Inter-American Commission on May 3, 2008, which was submitted to the Court the same day, following the private hearing in this case. CONSIDERING: 1. That one of the inherent attributes of the jurisdictional functions of the Court is to monitor compliance with its decisions. 2. That the State of Nicaragua has been a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the American Convention” or “the Convention”) since September 25, 1979, and accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court on February 12, 1991. 3. That 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.5 4. That, in view of the final and unappealable nature of the judgments of the Court, as established in Article 67 of the American Convention, they should be complied with fully and promptly by the State. 5. That 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, a State must comply with 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 perform a treaty.6 That the treaty obligations of the States Parties are binding for all the powers and organs of the State. 6. 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 not only with regard to the substantive norms of human rights treaties (that is, those which contain provisions concerning the protected rights), but also with regard to procedural norms, such as those referring to compliance with the decisions of the Court. These obligations shall be interpreted and 5 Cf. Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 131; Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers v. Peru. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 3, 2008, third considering paragraph; and Raxcacó Reyes v. Guatemala. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of March 28, 2008, third considering paragraph. 6 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; Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers. Monitoring compliance with judgment, supra note 5, fifth considering paragraph; Yakye Axa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 8, 2008, sixth considering paragraph.