3 the Commission, and the representatives referred to the points pending of compliance in the present case. 7. The communications of February 9, August 14, September 27, and December 21 of 2006; August 31, October 5, and November 6 of 2007; September 23 and October 1 of 2008, and April 29, June 10, 17, and 29, July 14, August 24, September 18 and November 3 of 2009, through which the State referred to its compliance with the Judgment. 8. The briefs of October 7, November 14 and December 7 of 2005; March 17, April 3, May 4 and 30, June 27, September 26 and October 10 of 2006; January 19 and November 6 and 15 of 2007; January 23 and 30, April 18, October 17, November 18 and December 2 of 2008, and April 23, June 17, 19 and 30, August 6, September 9 and 14 and November 11 of 2009, through which Mr. Baruch Ivcher Bronstein and his representatives presented their observations in relation to the state of compliance with the Judgment. 9. The communications of May 15, July 10 and November 2 of 2006; February 6 and November 28 of 2007; December 31 of 2008 and June 30 and September 14 of 2009, through which the Inter-American Commission presented its observations in relation to the state of compliance with the Judgment. 10. The briefs of December 3 and 18 of 2007 presented by the State, the communications of January 23 and 30 of January 2008 sent by Mr. Ivcher Bronstein and the brief of February 22, 2008, submitted by the Inter-American Commission, all of which refer to an article published in the magazine “Caretas,” on November 22, 2007, in which “the nationality of Mr. Baruch Ivcher Bronstein had been p[ut] into question.” On April 23, 2009, the representatives submitted documentation related to this point, as part of the appendixes of the complementary pleadings to those presented orally during the private hearing (supra Having Seen 6). Considering: 1. That the supervision of compliance with its decisions is an inherent capability of the jurisdictional functions of the Court. 2. That Peru is a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the American Convention” or “the Convention”) since July 28, 1978, and recognized the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on January 21, 1981. 3. That Article 68(1) of the American Convention stipulates that “[t]he State Parties to the Convention promise to fulfill the decisions of the Court in any case in which they are a party.” Therefore, the States must assure the implementation at the domestic level of that provided by the Tribunal in its decisions.2 2 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, paragraph 131; Caracazo v. Venezuela. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 23, 2009, considering third, and Cantoral Huamani and Garcia Santa Cruz v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 21, 2009, considering third.