4 2. Trinidad and Tobago was a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the American Convention” or “the Convention”) from May 28, 1991, date on which it also recognized the jurisdiction of the Court, until May 26, 1999, the date on which the denunciation made by the State entered into force, in accordance with Article 78 of the Convention. 3. Pursuant to Article 78(2) of the American Convention, the denunciation cannot have the effect of releasing the State from its obligations with respect to acts that may constitute a violation of said Convention and that occurred before the entry into force of said denunciation, as stated both in the Judgments on Preliminary Objections 1 and in the June 21, 2002 Judgment. 2 The facts in this case occurred before the denunciation by the State. 4. In view of the definitive and unappealable nature of the judgments of the Court, pursuant to Article 67 of the American Convention, the State must promptly and completely comply with them within the term set for this purpose. 5. Article 68(1) of the American Convention states 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.” In the case under discussion, the State must comply with the treaty obligations of the States Party, which are binding for all branches of government or bodies of the State. 6. The obligation to comply with the rulings in the decisions of the Court are in accordance with a basic principle of law regarding the international responsibility of the State, backed by international case law, according to which the States must fulfill their international treaty obligations in good faith (pacta sunt servanda) and, as this Court has already stated before and is set forth in Article 27 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, they cannot refuse to fulfill the previously established international responsibility for domestic reasons. 3 7. On July 5, 2002 the Secretariat the State of the Judgment on the merits and on reparations in the instant case, for which reason the terms to submit its first reports on compliance expired on January 5 and July 5, 2003, respectively. 8. The State has not supplied information pertaining to compliance with the June 21, 2002 Judgment, pursuant to operative paragraph sixteen of the aforementioned Judgment. Therefore, the Court has noted that the State was supposed to report every six months –that is, on January 5 and July 5, 2003- on the measures adopted, and, as the Court has verified, it has not fulfilled that obligation. 1 Cf., Hilaire Case. Preliminary Objections. September 1, 2001 Judgment. Series C No. 80, para. 28; Benjamin et al. Case. Preliminary Objections. September 1, 2001 Judgment. Series C No. 81, para. 22; and Constantine et al. Case. Preliminary Objections. September 1, 2001 Judgment. Series C No. 82, para. 28. 2 Cf., Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. Case. June 21, 2002 Judgment. Series C No. 94, paras. 12-20. 3 Cf., Bulacio Case. September 18, 2003 Judgment. Series C No. 100, paras. 116-118; Benavides Cevallos Case. Compliance with judgment. September 9, 2003 Order of the Court, Considering three and six; and Baena Ricardo et al. Case. Compliance with judgment. June 6, 2003 Order of the Court, Considering four.