2 5. The communications of January 15, February 11, March 26, May 18, and July 23, 2010, whereby the State (hereinafter “the State” or “Peru”) referred to compliance with the Judgment. 6. The briefs of February 16, April 9, May 4 and July 23 and 26, 2010, whereby the victim’s representatives (hereinafter “the representatives”) submitted their observations on the status of compliance with the Judgment. 7. The communications of April 29, May 14, and August 3, 2010, whereby the InterAmerican Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American Commission” or “the Commission”) submitted its observations regarding the state of compliance with the Judgment. Considering that: 1. Monitoring compliance with its decisions is an inherent power of the judicial functions of the Court. 2. Peru is a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the American Convention” or “the Convention”) since July 28, 1978, and that it recognized the obligatory jurisdiction of the Court on January 21, 1981. 3. In conformity with Article 67 of the American Convention, the Court’s judgments shall be fully and promptly complied with by the State. In addition, 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.” Therefore, States must ensure that the rulings set out in the Court’s decisions are implemented domestically.”1 4. The obligation to comply with the rulings of the Court corresponds to a basic principle of the law on the international responsibility of the State —supported by international jurisprudence— according to which the States must comply with their international conventional obligations in good faith (pacta sunt servanda) and, as previously held by the Court and pursuant to Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969, States may not invoke the provisions of its internal laws as justification to neglect its existing international responsibility.2 The conventional obligations of the States Parties binds all State branches and bodies.3 1 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 60; Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of May 28, 2010, Considering Clause five, and Case of Vargas Areco v. Paraguay. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 20, 2010, Considering Clause three. 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. Series A No. 14, para. 35; Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama, supra note 1, Considering Clause five, and Case of Vargas Areco v. Paraguay, supra note 1, Considering Clause four. 3 Cf. Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Court of November 17, 1999. Series C No. 59, Considering Clause three; Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama, supra note 1, Considering Clause five, and Case of Vargas Areco v. Paraguay, supra note 1, Considering Clause four.