3 all of 2007, through which the State of Chile (hereinafter “the State” or “Chile”) informed of the state of compliance with the Judgment. 3. The briefs of February 23 and its appendix, of June 21, of September 13, and of November 12, 22, and 26, all of 2007, through which the representatives of the victim (hereinafter “the representatives”), presented observations to the information provided by the State and presented information regarding the payments owed by Mr. Palamara Iribarne to Mrs. Stewart Orlandini ordered in the Tribunal’s Judgment. 4. The briefs of March 13, July 5, of October 17, and of November 14 and 21, all of 2007, through which the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American Commission” or “the Commission”) presented observations to the information offered by the State and the payments owed by Mr. Palamara Iribarne to Mrs. Stewart Orlandini ordered in the Tribunal’s Judgment. 5. Mrs. Anne Ellen Stewart Orlandini’s communication of May 29, 2007, in relation to the payments owed to her by Mr. Palamara Iribarne ordered in the Tribunal’s Judgment. CONSIDERING: 1. That one of the inherent attributes of the jurisdictional functions of the Court is to monitor compliance with its decisions. 2. That Chile is a State Party to the American Convention since August 21, 1990 and it acknowledged the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court on that same day. 3. That Article 68(1) of the Convention establishes 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.” For this the States must ensure the domestic implementation of that stated by the Tribunal in its decisions.1 4. That in virtue of the final and unappealable nature of the Court’s judgments, pursuant to that established in Article 67 of the American Convention, these must be complied with promptly by the State in their totality. 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 fulfill 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 assume a previously established international responsibility. The treaty obligations of the States Parties are binding for all the powers and organs of the State.2 1 Cfr. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 131; Case of Molina Theissen. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 10, 2007, Considering Clause number two; and Case of García Asto and Ramírez Rojas. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Right of July 12, 2007, Considering Clause number four. 2 Cfr. International Responsibility for the Promulgation and Enforcement of Laws in Violation of the Convention (Arts. 1 and 2 of the American Convention of Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-14/94 of December 9, 1994, para. 35; Case of Molina Theissen. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment, supra note 1, Considering Clause number three; and Case of García Asto and Ramírez Rojas. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment, supra note 1, Considering Clause number six.