8 CONSIDERING: 1. That one of the inherent attributes of the jurisdictional functions of the Court is to monitor compliance with its decisions. 2. That Peru has been a State Party to the American Convention since July 28, 1978, and accepted the obligatory jurisdiction of the Court on January 21, 1981. 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.” The treaty obligations of the States Parties are binding for all the powers and functions of the State. 4. That, in view of the final and non-appealable character 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 rulings 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 domestic law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty1. 6. That, from monitoring compliance with the judgments on merits and reparations delivered in this case, and having examined the information provided by the State the Inter-American Commission and the victim’s representatives, the Court has verified that the State has complied with: a) Payment of the amounts corresponding to the compensation for pecuniary damage ordered in favor of Luis Alberto Cantoral Benavides, Gladys Benavides López and Luis Fernando Cantoral Benavides (first operative paragraph of the judgment on reparations of December 3, 2001,); b) Payment of the amounts corresponding to the compensation for nonpecuniary damage ordered in favor of Luis Alberto Cantoral Benavides, Gladys Benavides López, Luis Fernando Cantoral Benavides, Isaac Alonso Cantoral Benavides and José Antonio Cantoral Benavides (second operative paragraph of the judgment on reparations of December 3, 2001); c) Payment of the amounts corresponding to the reimbursement ordered of the costs and expenses ordered in favor of the representatives of the victim 1 Cf. Benavides Cevallos case. Compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 9, 2003, third considering paragraph; Baena Ricardo et al. case. Compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of June 6, 2003, fourth considering paragraph; “The Last Temptation of Christ” case (Olmedo Bustos et al.). Compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 28, 2002, third considering paragraph; El Amparo case. Compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 28, 2002, third considering clause; and International Responsibility for the Promulgation and Enforcement of Laws in Violation of the Convention (Arts. 1 and 2 of the American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-14/94 of December 9, 1994. Series A No. 14, para. 35.