8 compliance with summonses by persons who either reside or are present within their territory. [...] 10. Article 43(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court establishes that: [s]hould any of the parties allege force majeure, serious impediment or the emergence of supervening events as grounds for producing an item of evidence, the Court may, in that particular instance, admit such evidence at a time other than those indicated above, provided that the opposing parties are guaranteed the right of defense. and the Venezuelan State did not object to receiving Mr. Uzcátegui’s sworn statement instead of his oral testimony. 11. In view of the facts submitted at the public hearing (supra Having Seen 17 and 18) and of the content of the sworn testimony of Mr. Uzcátegui (supra Having Seen 20), the Court deems it necessary to reiterate to Venezuela that it is the responsibility of the State to adopt security measures to protect all persons under its jurisdiction and that this duty is all the more evident with respect to those involved in proceedings before the protection bodies of the American Convention. 12. Venezuela has the duty to investigate the facts that gave rise to the Provisional Measures in favor of Luis Uzcátegui, as the State has the obligation to combat said situation by all legal means available because impunity fosters chronic recidivism of human rights violations and total defenselessness of victims and of their next of kin.3 13. The Court, as does any international body with jurisdictional functions, has the power, inherent to its authority, of establishing the scope of its orders and decisions, and compliance with them cannot be left to mere discretion of the parties as it would be inadmissible to subordinate a mechanism set forth in the American Convention to restrictions that would make the function of the Court, and therefore the system for protection of human rights enshrined in the Convention, ineffective.4 14. The States must comply in good faith with their obligations under the Convention (pacta sunt servanda) as set forth in Article 27 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on Treaty Law, which defines a basic principle of general international law by stating that: a party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty. ... 3 Cf. Bámaca Velásquez Case. Reparations (Art. 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). February 22, 2002 Judgment. Series C No. 91, para. 64; Bámaca Velásquez Case. November 25, 2000 Judgment. Series C No. 70, para. 211 and Loayza Tamayo Case. Reparations (Art. 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). November 27, 1998 Judgment. Series C No. 42, para. 170. 4 Cf. Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. case. June 21, 2002 Judgment. Series C No. 94, para. 19; Hilaire Case. Preliminary Objections. September 1, 2001 Judgment. Series C No. 80, paras. 82 and 84; I-A Court of HR, Benjamin et al. Case. Preliminary Objections. September 1, 2001 Judgment. Series C No. 81, paras. 73 and 75; I-A Court of HR, Constantine et al. Case. Preliminary Objections. September 1, 2001 Judgment. Series C No. 82, paras. 73 and 75; Case of the Constitutional Court. Jurisdiction. September 24, 1999 Judgment. Series C No. 55, para. 35, and Ivcher Bronstein Case. Jurisdiction. September 24, 1999 Judgment. Series C No. 54, para. 36.