4 a) by having obligated itself to respect the norms of the American Convention on Human Rights and after having participated as a party in the Castillo Petruzzi et al. Case, Peru should fulfill its international obligations in good faith; b) Article 67 of the American Convention on Human Rights establishes in an unequivocal form that the judgments rendered in a contentious proceeding before the Court are not subject to appeal; c) the State’s noncompliance constitutes defiance of Article 68(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights, which establishes the obligatory nature of the judgments of the Court and, in an unequivocal manner, the obligation of the States Parties to this Convention to comply with that which is ordered in its judgments; d) it is the duty of the State to comply with its conventional obligations of good faith; a principle set forth in Article 31 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties; e) on ratifying the American Convention on Human Rights, the States Parties undertake duties of protection to all persons subject to their jurisdiction. From there derives the duty to comply and to oblige to comply in good faith with the decisions of the judicial organ established by this Convention; f) “the object and purpose of the Convention is to establish an InterAmerican system of protection wherein the rights and freedoms enumerated are made fully effective, as suggests its preamble. Therefore, the organs of the State are obligated to respect them and ensure them according to Article 1(1) of the Convention”; g) the judgments of the Court should be observed in an immediate and integral manner; if they had to conform to the internal legislation of the States Parties to be enforceable, the protection of the International Law of Human Rights would become illusory and would be left to the sole discretion of the State and not to the supranational organ whose judgments should be fulfilled in good faith by the States; h) the supremacy of the international obligations of the State over internal law constitutes one of the pillars of international law, as set forth in Article 27 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, and i) Law 23.506 on Habeas Corpus and Amparo and the Law of the Judicial Power, both in force in Peru, “suggest” that the judgments of the Court have complete legal validity and effectiveness in the internal jurisdiction of the State and are enforceable without the need to review their compatibility with domestic law. For the above reasons, the Commission requested that the Court: a) reject as inadmissible the Order of the State and demand the full, prompt, and unconditional execution of the operative paragraphs of the May 30, 1999 Judgment which have not been executed, and