3 5. The observations to the state’s reports presented by the representatives of the victims (hereinafter “the representatives”) on April 15, 2005, April 6, 2006, and October 17, 2008. 6. The observations to the state’s reports presented by the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Commission” or “the Inter-American Commission”) on May 4, 2005, April 20, 2006, and February 4, 2009. CONSIDERING: 1. That supervision of compliance with its orders is one of the attributions inherent to the Court’s jurisdictional functions. 2. That Perú has been a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the American Convention”) since July 28, 1978, and that it recognized the 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.” To such effect, the States must ensure implementation, at the domestic level, of the requirements stated by the Court in its Orders.1 4. That by virtue of the nature of the Court’s judgments as final and not subject to appeal, as established in Article 67 of the American Convention, they must be promptly fulfilled by the State in all of their aspects within the term established for that effect. 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 pre-established international responsibility. The State Parties’ obligations under the Convention bind all State branches and organs. 2 * * * 1 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 131; Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala. Monitoring of Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of January 27, 2009, Considering clause number 3; and Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Monitoring of Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of January 27, 2009, Considering Clause number 3. 2 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, para. 35; Case of Suárez Rosero v. Ecuador. Monitoring Compliance with the Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of March 20, 2009, Considering clause number 4; and Case of Bámaca Velásquez. Monitoring of Compliance with Judgment, supra note 1, Fifth considering clause.