2
b)
hold a public act of acknowledgement of responsibility (operative paragraph ten of the
Judgment).
3.
The brief of August 19, 2010, by which the Republic of Argentina (hereinafter “the
State” or “Argentina”) presented its report about compliance with the outstanding points of
the Judgment .
4.
The briefs of July 8 and September 20, 2010 and their annexes, by which the
representatives of the victim (hereinafter “the representatives”) presented information
about the compliance with the Judgment and their comments on that set forth by the State
concerning the issue.
5.
The communication of October 8, 2010, by which the Inter-American Commission on
Human Rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American Commission” or “the Commission”)
presented its comments on the information issued by the State and on the briefs of the
representatives regarding compliance with the Judgment.
CONSIDERING THAT:
1.
Monitoring of compliance with its decisions is an inherent power of the judicial
functions of the Court.
2.
Argentina has been a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights
(hereinafter “the American Convention” or “Convention”) since September 5, 1984, and
accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court on the same date.
3.
Pursuant to Article 68(1) of the American Convention, “[t]he States Parties to the
Convention undertake to comply with the judgment of the Court in any case to which they
are parties.” Therefore, States must ensure that the rulings set out in the decisions of the
Court are implemented domestically.1
4.
In view of the final and incontestable character of the judgments of the Court, as
established in Article 67 of the American Convention, the State should comply with them
fully and promptly.
5.
The duty to comply with the decisions in the Court’s judgments corresponds to a
basic principle of the law of international responsibility of the State, supported by
international jurisprudence, according to which States must comply with their international
treaty obligations in good faith (pacta sunt servanda).
6.
The States Parties to the Convention must guarantee compliance with the
provisions thereof and their effectiveness (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 protected rights), but also
with regard to procedural norms, such as those referring to compliance with the decisions of
the Court. These obligations are to be interpreted and enforced in a manner such that the
protected guarantee is truly practical and effective, bearing in mind the special nature of
1
Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo and others v. Panama. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C
No. 104, paragraph. 131; Case of Albán Cornejo and others v. Ecuador. Monitoring of Compliance with Judgment.
Order of the Court of August 27, 2010, third Considering Clause, and Case of Tristán Donoso v. Panama.
Monitoring of Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Court of September 1, 2010, third Considering Clause.