4 CONSIDERING THAT: 1. It is an inherent power of the judicial functions of the Court to monitor compliance with its decisions. 2. Colombia has been a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter, the “American Convention” or the "Convention”) since July 31, 1973, and that it accepted the binding jurisdiction of the Court on June 21, 1985. 3. 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, the States must ensure that the rulings set out in the decisions of the Court are implemented at the domestic level7. 4. In consideration of section 67 of the Convention which stipulates that the judgment of the Court shall be final and shall not be subject to appeal, such judgment shall be fully and promptly complied with by the State. 5. The obligation to comply with the rulings of the Tribunal conforms to a basic principle of the law on the International responsibility of States, under which Sates are required to fulfill their International treaty obligations in good faith (pacta sunt servanda) and, as previously held by the Court and provided for in Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969, States cannot invoke their municipal laws to escape from their pre-established international responsibility8. The treaty obligations of States Parties are binding on all State powers and organs. 9. 6. The States Parties to the Convention must ensure compliance with its conventional provisions and their inherent effects (effet utile) within their respective domestic legal systems. This principle applies not only in connection with the substantive provisions of human rights treaties (i.e. those dealing with the protected rights) but also in connection with procedural rules, such as the ones concerning compliance with the decisions of the Court. Such obligations are representatives in the eight Colombian cases before the hearing: i) on behalf of the Jose Alvear Restrepo Lawyers’ Association (Colectivo de Abogados Jose Alvear Restrepo): Rafael María Barrios Mendivil, Jomary Liz Ortegón Osorio, Juliana María Benavides Castillo, Arturo Salgado Garzón, Angie Lizeth Fernández Gómez, Pilar Silva Garay, Dora Lucy Arias, Liliana Ambuila, Sandra Gamboa Rubiano and Luis Alfonso Fajardo Sánchez; ii) on behalf of the Interdisciplinary Group for Human Rights: María Victoria Fallon Morales, Patricia Fuenmayor Gómez, Juliana Bravo Valencia, Luz Marina Monzón Cifuentes, Miladis del Carmen Restrepo Torres and Carlos Rodríguez Mejía; iii) on behalf of the Colombian Jurists Commission: Diego Fernando Abonía Vergara, José Daniel Álvarez, Liz Arévalo, Viviana Rodríguez Peña and Oscar Javier Carbonell Valderrama, and iv) on behalf of the Center for Justice and International Law (CEJIL): Viviana Krsticevic and Gisela de León; and c) on behalf of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights: Lilly Ching Soto and Karla Quintana Osuna. 7 See Case of Baena Ricardo et al V Panama . Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 131; Case of the Saramaka People V. Surinam. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Court’s President of April 20, 2010, considering clause three; and Case of Heliodoro Portugal V. Panama. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Court’s President of April 20, 2010, Considering clause three. 8 See International Responsibility for the Promulgation and Enforcement of Laws in Violation of the Convention (articles 1and 2 American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-14/94 of December 9, 1994, Series A Nº.14, para. 35; Case of the Saramaka People V. Surinam, supra note 7, considering clause five and Case of Heliodoro Portugal V. Panama, supra note 7, considering clause four. 9 See 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 the Saramaka People V. Surinam, supra note 7, considering clause five and Case of Heliodoro Portugal V. Panama, supra note 7, considering clause four.