3 2. Colombia has been a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter, the “American Convention” or the "Convention”) since July 31, 1973, and it accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court on June 21, 1985. 3. Article 68(1) of the American Convention stipulates that “[t]he State Parties to the Convention undertake to comply with the judgment of the Court in any case to which they are parties”. Therefore, the States must ensure that the rulings set out in the Court’s decisions are implemented at the domestic level.2 4. In consideration of Article 67 of the American Convention that stipulates that the judgment of the Court shall be final and shall not be subject to appeal, such judgment shall be fully and promptly complied with by the State. 5. The obligation to comply with the rulings of the Tribunal conforms to a basic principle of the law on the international responsibility of States, under which States are required to fulfill their international treaty obligations in good faith (pacta sunt servanda) and, as previously held by the Court and provided for in Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969, States cannot invoke the provisions of its internal laws to neglect its existing international responsibility.3 The treaty obligations of States Parties are binding on all State powers and organs.4 6. The States Parties to the Convention must ensure compliance with conventional provisions and their effectiveness (effet utile) within their respective domestic legal systems. This principle applies not only in connection with the substantive provisions of human rights treaties (i.e. those dealing with provisions on protected rights) but also in connection with procedural rules, such as those concerning compliance with the decisions of the Court. Such obligations are intended to be interpreted and enforced in a manner such that the protected guarantee is truly practical and effective, taking into account the special nature of human rights treaties5. * * * 7. Next, the Court shall assess the information presented by the parties related to the different reparation measures ordered in the Judgment and shall determine the level of compliance by the State. Said Judgment ordered Colombia to comply with the reparation measures agreed upon in the “Partial Agreement on certain reparation measures” approved by the Court as well as the additional measures that the Court 2 See Case of Baena Ricardo et al. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para 60; Case of Baena Ricardo et al V. Panama. Monitoring Compliance with the Judgment. Order of the Court of May 28, 2010, considering clause three and Case of Vargas Areco V. Paraguay, Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the President of the Court of July 20, 2010; Considering Clause three. 3 See International Responsibility for the Promulgation and Enforcement of Laws in Violation of the Convention (articles 1and 2 American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-14/94 of December 9, 1994, Series A Nº.14, para. 35; Case of Baena Ricardo et al V. Panama, supra note 2; Considering Clause five; and case of Vargas Areco V. Paraguay, supra note 2, Considering Clause four. 4 See Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al V. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Court of November 17, 1999, Considering Clause three; Case of Baena Ricardo et al V. Panama, supra note 2; Considering Clause five; and case of Vargas Areco V. Paraguay, supra note 2, Considering Clause four. 5 See Case of Ivcher Bronstein V. Peru. Competence. Judgment of the Inter-American Court of Human rights of September 24, 1999. Series C Nº 54, para. 37; Case of Baena Ricardo et al V. Panama, supra note 2; Considering Clause six; and Case of Vargas Areco V. Paraguay, supra note 2, Considering Clause five.