3 representatives. CONSIDERING THAT: 1. One of the inherent attributes of the jurisdictional functions of the Court is to monitor compliance with its decisions. 2. Panama has been a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter, the “American Convention” or the “Convention”) since June 22, 1978, and accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court on May 9, 1990. 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”. To this end, the State must ensure implementation at the national level of the Court’s decisions in its judgments.1 4. In view of the final and non-appealable nature of the judgments of the Court, as established in Article 67 of the American Convention, the State must comply with them fully and promptly. 5. The obligation to comply with the decisions in the Court’s judgments corresponds to a basic principle of the law of the international responsibility of the State, supported by international case law, according to which a State must comply with its international treaty obligations in good faith (pacta sunt servanda) and, as this Court has already indicated and as established in Article 27 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty.2 The treaty obligations of the States Parties are binding for all the powers and organs of the State.3 6. The States Parties to the Convention must ensure compliance with its provisions and their inherent effects (effet utile) within their respective domestic legal systems. This principle is applicable not only with regard to the substantive norms of human rights treaties (that is, those which contain provisions concerning the protected rights), but also with regard to procedural norms, such as those referring to compliance with the decisions of the Court. These obligations shall be interpreted and applied so that 1 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 131; Case of Valle Jaramillo v. Colombia. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of December 21, 2010; third considering paragraph, and Case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of December 22, 2010; third considering paragraph. 2 Cf. International Responsibility for the Promulgation and Enforcement of Laws in Violation of the Convention (Arts. 1 and 2 American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-14/94 of December 9, 1994. Series A No. 14, para. 35; Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the acting President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of December 21, 2010, sixth considering paragraph, and Case of Valle Jaramillo v. Colombia, supra note 1, fourth considering paragraph. 3 Cf. Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Court of November 17, 1999, third considering paragraph; Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru, supra note 2, sixth considering paragraph, and Case of Valle Jaramillo v. Colombia, supra note 1, fourth considering paragraph.