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.

Select target paragraph3