2 3. The briefs of October 19, 2008 and May 7, 2009, whereby, respectively, the victim’s representatives (hereinafter, “the representatives”) requested information on the reimbursement of costs and expenses ordered in the Judgment and submitted their observations to the information provided by the State. 4. The brief of April 21, 2009, whereby the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter, “the Inter-American Commission” or “the Commission”) submitted its observations to the information reported by the State. CONSIDERING: 1. That monitoring compliance with its decisions is a power inherent in the judicial functions of the Court. 2. That Mexico has been a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter, “the Convention” or “the American Convention”) since March 24, 1981, and that it acknowledged the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on December 16, 1998. 3. That Article 68(1) of the American Convention provides 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 such purpose, the States must guarantee that the decisions of the Court are implemented domestically.1 4. That, in view of the final and non-appealable nature of the judgments of the Court, as established in Article 67 of the American Convention, such judgments should be complied with fully and promptly by the State. 5. That the obligation to comply with the rulings of the Court conforms to a basic principle of the law on the international responsibility of States, as supported by international case law, under which States are required to comply with 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 their municipal laws to escape their preestablished international responsibility.2 The State Parties’ obligations under the Convention bind all State branches and organs.3 1 Cf. Case of Baena-Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 131; Case of Cantoral-Huamaní and García-Santa Cruz V. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of April 28, 2009, Considering clause No. 3; and Case of Chaparro-Álvarez and Lapo-Íñiguez V. Ecuador. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of April 29, 2009, Considering clause No. 3. 2 Cf. 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, para. 35; Case of Cantoral-Huamaní and García-Santa Cruz V. Peru, supra note 1, Considering clause No. 5, and Case of Chaparro-Álvarez and Lapo-Íñiguez V. Ecuador, supra note 1, Considering clause No. 5. 3 Cf. Case of Castillo-Petruzzi et al. v. Peru. Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 17, 1999. Series C No. 59, Considering clause No. 3; Case of CantoralHuamaní and García-Santa Cruz V. Peru, supra note 1, Considering clause No. 5, and Case of ChaparroÁlvarez and Lapo-Íñiguez V. Ecuador, supra note 1, Considering clause No. 5.