6 k) Peru’s argument that, in order to have a new trial, it would have to reform its Constitution and domestic laws is not worthy of consideration, since there should exist, in ordinary or civil justice, some criminal standard which includes the respective conduct of those charged CONSIDERING: 1. That on June 11, 1999, the Plenary Court of the Supreme Council of Military Justice emitted an order that declared the judgment of this Tribunal could not be executed. 2. That Article 67 of the American Convention on Human Rights establishes that “[t]he judgment of the Court shall be final and not subject to appeal. In case of disagreement as to the meaning or scope of the judgment, the Court shall interpret it at the request of any of the parties, provided the request is made within ninety days from the date of notification of the judgment.” 3. That Article 68(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights 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.” The conventional obligations of the States Parties bind all of the authorities and organs of the State. 4. That this obligation corresponds to a basic principle of the law of international state responsibility, supported by international jurisprudence, according to which States must fulfill their conventional international obligations in good faith (pacta sunt servanda) and, as the Court has already stated, can not for reasons of domestic law fail to assume already established international responsibility. (cfr. International Responsibility for the Promulgation and Enforcement of laws in Violation of the Convention (Arts. 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). 5. That, in this respect, Article 27 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties codifies a basic principle of general international law in observing that [a] party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty. 6. That, by virtue of the definite and unappealable nature of the judgments of the Court, they should be promptly fulfilled by the State in an integral manner. NOW, THEREFORE: THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS, in accordance with Articles 67 and 68(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights, Article 25 of the Statute of the Court, and Article 29 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court, DECIDES: