j) To pay the amounts established as compensation for non-pecuniary damage to the 34 people who, to date, have not yet received it for the reasons indicated in considering paragraphs 57 and 58 of this order, and the reimbursement of costs and expenses to CEJIL (eighteenth operative paragraph of the judgment). […] 3. The reports of the Republic of Guatemala (hereinafter, "Guatemala" or the "State") related to the progress made in the compliance with the Judgment, presented on August 18 and September 22, 2011; February 28 and May 4, 2012. 4. The information submitted by the victims’ representatives (hereinafter, the “representatives”) on August 10 and the observations to the State's reports on compliance presented on September 2, 2011; April 3 and June 12, 2012. 5. The observations of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter, the “Commission” or the “Inter-American Commission”) on the State’s reports on compliance presented on November 18, 2011; April 30 and July 3, 2012. CONSIDERING THAT: 1. It is an inherent power of the judicial functions of the Court to monitor compliance with its decisions. 2. Guatemala has been a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter, the “Convention” or the “American Convention”) since May 25, 1978, and that it accepted the binding jurisdiction of the Court on March 9, 1987. 3. Pursuant to article 67 of the American Convention, States Parties must comply fully and promptly with the Court’s judgments. Furthermore, 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 level.1 4. The obligation to comply with the rulings of the Court conforms to a basic principle of the law on the international responsibility of States, supported by international jurisprudence, under which States 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 responsibility. The treaty obligations of States Parties are 2 binding on all State powers and organs. 1 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C N° 104, para.60, and Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Court of June 28, 2012, third considering paragraph. 2 Cf. International Responsibility for 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 and Case of Baena Ricardo et al v. Panama. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Court of June 28, 2012, fifth considering paragraph. 2