June 10, 2011, wherein information was provided regarding the monitoring of compliance with the Judgment. 4. The communications of Mrs. María Elena Loayza Tamayo (hereinafter “Mrs. Loayza Tamayo” or “the victim”) of June 8, and December 21, 2008, August 10, 2009, July 23 and September 22, 2010, and May 25, 2011, wherein observations were provided in regard to the monitoring of compliance with the Judgment. 5. The briefs of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Commission” or “the Inter-American Commission”) of June 20, 2008, September 2, 2009, August 4, and September 24, 2010, and June 9, 2011, wherein observations were provided regarding the monitoring of compliance of the Judgment. 6. The notes of the Secretariat of the Court of March 2, 2010, and May 26, 2011 wherein, following instructions by the President in exercise of this case, information was requested from the parties regarding specific aspects related to compliance of the Judgment. CONSIDERING THAT: 1. One of the inherent attributes of the judicial functions of the Court is to monitor compliance with its decisions. 2. Peru has been a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the American Convention” or “the Convention”) since July 28, 1978, and it recognized the jurisdiction of the Court on January 21, 1981. 3. Pursuant to Article 67 of the American Convention, the Judgments of the Court must be promptly fulfilled by the State in all of its aspects. Likewise, 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 such effect, the States must ensure implementation, at the domestic level, of the requirements stated by the Court in its Orders.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, as supported by international jurisprudence, under which States are required to comply with 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 domestic laws to escape their pre-established international  Judge Alberto Pérez Pérez, for reasons of force majeure, did not assist the 91st Regular Period of Sessions, and consequently, did not participate in the deliberation and signing of this Order. Judge Diego GarcíaSayán, of Peruvian nationality, excused himself from hearing this case, pursuant to Articles 19(2) of the Statute of the Court and 19 of the Rules of Procedure. 1 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al.. Jurisdiction. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 60; Case of the “Las Dos Erres Massacre” V. Guatemala. Monitoring of Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 6, 2011, Considering clause three, and Case of Montero Aranguren et al. (Detention Center of Catia) V. Venezuela. Monitoring of Compliance with Judgment. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of August 30, 2011, Considering clause three. 2