3 have been made and are still pending; the stage the proceedings thereupon has reached and the results achieved, and whether the next of kin of the victims have had access to the proceedings and standing in the course thereof. Such requirement was renewed in notes by the Secretariat dated July 29 and September 02, 2009. 11. The brief dated September 09, 2009, whereby the State forwarded information regarding compliance with operative paragraph number six of the Judgment, in response to the request by the Tribunal (supra Having Seen Clause Number 10), as well as the brief dated September 17, 2009, whereby the representatives filed comments on such brief. The Inter-American Commission did not file any comments within the time limit granted for such purpose. Considering: 1. That supervising the compliance with its decisions is an inherent jurisdictional power of the Court. 2. That Ecuador has been a State Party to the Convention since December 28, 1977, and recognized the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on July 24, 1984. 3. That Article 68(1) of the American Convention sets forth 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 ensure the implementation, within their jurisdictions, of the orders issued by the Court in its decisions.2 4. That since the Court Judgments are final and not subject to appeal, pursuant to Article 67 of the American Convention, the States must comply with them promptly and fully. 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, under which States are required to fulfill their international treaty obligations in good faith (pacta sunt servanda) and, as previously held by the Court and provided in Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969, States cannot invoke their municipal laws to avoid their pre-established international responsibility. The treaty obligations of States Parties are binding on all State powers and organs.3 6. That the States Parties to the Convention must guarantee the compliance with conventional provisions and their specific effects (effet utile) in their own domestic legal systems. This principle applies not only to the substantive provisions in the human rights treaties (that is, those containing provisions regarding the rights protected), but also with respect to the procedural provisions, such as those 2 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panamá. Competence. Judgment dated November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 131; and Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 09, 2009, Considering Clause Number Three and Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 09, 2009, Considering Clause Number Three and Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia. 3 Cf. International Responsibility for the Promulgation and Enforcement of Laws in Violation of the Convention (Arts. 1 and 2 American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-14/94 of December 9, 1994. Series A No. 14, para. 14, para. Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 17, 1999. Series C No. 59, Considering Clause Number Three; Case of Herrera Ulloa, supra note 2, Considering Clause Number Five, and Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre, supra note 2, Considering Clause Number Five.