-11- g) regarding the obligations to seek the next of kin of three victims, it points out that the next of kin of one of them have already been located. The Court established in the Judgment that the measures of diffusion ordered were part of a minimum. The measures adopted by the State have not achieved the useful object sought; h) regarding the payments ordered in favor of the next of kin of the victims, as compensation, it considers that it is clear that the Court has ordered that the next of kin must dispose of the amounts ordered without any deduction; and i) regarding the creation of banking investments in favor of the underage beneficiaries, the State did not refer specifically to this matter in its report. 12. The brief of November 16, 2005, through which the Commission forwarded a copy of a communication to the representatives and their next of kin regarding a diligence for the search of the remains of the victims, which was programmed by the Attorney General of the Nation to be carried out on November 15, 16, and 17, 2005. In said communication, the representatives asked the Commission “to get in contact with the Colombian authorities, in order to ensure that the next of kin and their representatives enjoy all the guarantees in order to participate in the mentioned diligence.” WHEREAS: 1. That the supervision of compliance with its decisions is a power inherent to the jurisdictional functions of the Court. 2. That Colombia is a State Party in the American Convention since July 31, 1973 and it acknowledged the obligatory competence of the Court on June 21, 1985. 3. That Article 68(1) of the American Convention states 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 this the States must ensure the implementation at a domestic level of that ordered by the Tribunal in its decisions.1 4. That in virtue of the definitive and unappealable nature of the judgments of the Court, pursuant to that established in Article 67 of the American Convention, these must be complied with in a prompt manner by the State in a comprehensive manner. 5. That the obligation to comply with that stated in the decisions of the Court correspond to a basic principle of law on the State’s international responsibility, backed up by the international jurisprudence, according to which the States must comply with their international conventional obligations with good faith (pacta sunt servanda) and, as has already been stated by this Court and in Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of the Treaties of 1969, they may not, due to reasons Cfr. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 131. 1