7 1. That one of the inherent attributes of the jurisdictional functions of the Court is to monitor compliance with its decisions. 2. That the State of Guatemala has been a State Party to the American Convention since May 25, 1978, and accepted the jurisdiction of the Court on March 9, 1987. 3. That, in view of the final and unappealable character of the judgments of the Court, as established in Article 67 of the American Convention, they should be complied with fully and promptly. 4. 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.” The treaty obligations of the States Parties are binding for all the powers and organs of the States. 5. That the obligation to comply with the provisions of the Court’s judgments corresponds to a basic principle of the law of the international responsibility of the State, supported by international case law, according to which, a State must comply with its international treaty obligations in good faith (pacta sunt servanda) and, as this Court has already indicated and as established in Article 27 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty1. 6. That the whereabouts of Gerardo Adoriman Villagrán Morales, beneficiary of the compensation ordered for non-pecuniary damage amounting to US$3.000,00 (three thousand United States dollars), is unknown and that, in this respect, the State had to deposit this amount in favor of the beneficiary in a solvent Guatemala banking institution in accordance with paragraph 117 of the judgment on reparations of May 26, 2001, and present to the Court the voucher corresponding to this measure so that it could confirm compliance. 7. That, according to information provided by the State, Ana María Contreras, the mother of Henry Giovanni Contreras, accepted that the State conduct a symbolic act of burial for her son and consented that the necessary measures to locate, exhume, transfer and inter his remains in a place of her election should not be taken. The Commission and the representatives of the victims’ next of kin have expressed their rejection of the way in which the State has attempted to comply with this obligation (supra third, fourth, fifth, seventh, eighth, tenth and twelfth having seen paragraphs). 8. That it is necessary to consult Ana María Contreras, the mother of Henry Giovanni Contreras, to know whether she accepts the said symbolic act conducted by 1 Cf. Benavides Cevallos case. Compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 9, 2003, third considering paragraph; Baena Ricardo et al. case. Compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of June 6, 2003, fourth considering paragraph; “The Last Temptation of Christ” case (Olmedo Bustos et al.). Compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 28, 2002, third considering paragraph; El Amparo case. Compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 28, 2002, third considering paragraph; and International Responsibility for the Promulgation and Enforcement of Laws in Violation of the Convention (Arts. 1 and 2 of the American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-14/94 of December 9, 1994. Series A No. 14, para. 35.