observations on the information presented by Chile regarding the aspects of the judgment
pending compliance.
5.
The briefs of June 3, 2010, and May 11, 2011, in which the Inter-American
Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American Commission” or “the
Commission”) submitted its observations on the information presented by the State and the
observations of the representatives.
CONSIDERING THAT:
1.
One of the inherent attributes of the jurisdictional functions of the Court is to monitor
compliance with its decisions.
2.
Chile has been a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights
(hereinafter “the American Convention” or “the Convention”) since August 21, 1990, and
accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court the same day.
3.
In accordance with the provisions of Article 67 of the American Convention, the State
must comply fully and promptly with the Court's judgments. Furthermore, Article 68(1) of
the American Convention stipulates that “ t he State Parties to the Convention undertake
to comply with the Court's decisions in any case to which they are parties.” To this end,
States must ensure the domestic implementation of the provisions of the Court's decisions.1
4.
The obligation to comply with the Court's rulings conforms to a basic principle of
international law, supported by international jurisprudence, in accordance with which States
must abide by their international treaty obligations in good faith (pacta sunt servanda) and,
as this Court has 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 treaty.2 The treaty obligations of State Parties are
binding on all the powers and organs of the State.3
5.
The States Parties to the Convention must ensure compliance with its provisions and
their inherent effects (effet utile) within their respective laws. This principle applies not only
with regard to the substantive provisions of human rights treaties (that is, those that
include provisions on the protected rights), but also with regard to procedural norms, such
as those concerning compliance with the Court’s decisions. These obligations must be

1

Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No.
104, para. 60; Case of Tiu Tojín v. Guatemala. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American
Court of Human Rights of May 16, 2011, third considering paragraph, and Case of Castillo Páez v. Peru. Monitoring
compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 19, 2011, third considering
paragraph.
2

Cf.
International Responsibility for the Promulgation and Enforcement of Laws in Violation of the
Convention (Art. 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; Case of Castillo Páez v. Peru, supra note 1, fourth considering paragraph, and
Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of
Human Rights of May 19, 2011, fifth considering paragraph.
3

Cf. Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of November 17, 1999, third considering paragraph; Case of Castillo Páez v. Peru,
supra note 1, fourth considering paragraph, and Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico, supra note 2, fifth considering
paragraph.

2

Select target paragraph3