2
4.
The private hearing held by the Court on February 4, 2008,1 during which the
State, the representatives and the Commission referred to the degree of compliance
with the Judgment.
5.
The documents presented by the State and the representatives during the
private hearing.
CONSIDERING:
1.
That one of the inherent attributes of the jurisdictional functions of the Court
is to monitor compliance with its decisions.
2.
That the State of Paraguay has been a State Party to the American
Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” or “the American
Convention”) since August 24, 1989, and accepted the jurisdiction of the Court on
March 26, 1993.
3.
That 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.2
4.
That, in view of the final and unappealable nature of the judgments of the
Court, as established in Article 67 of the American Convention, they should be
complied with fully and promptly by the State.
5.
That 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.3

1

Pursuant to Article 6(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the Court held the hearing with a panel of
judges composed of: Judge Diego García-Sayán, Vice President; Judge Sergio García Ramírez and Judge
Rhadys Abreu Blondet. There appeared before the hearing: (a) for the Inter-American Commission: Isabel
Madariaga and Lilly Ching, advisers; (b) for the State of Paraguay: Darío Díaz Camaraza, Attorney
General; Arnaldo Frutos, Deputy Minister of the National Secretariat for Children and Adolescents; Julio
Arriola, Chargé d’Affaires of the Republic of Paraguay to the Government of the Republic of Costa Rica;
Edgar Fidias Taboada Ynsfrán, Director General of Human Rights of the Ministry of Justice and Labor;
Francisco Barreiro Perrota, Director of Human Rights of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs; Nury Natalia
Montiel Mallada, Director of Human Rights of the Supreme Court of Justice; Silvio Ortega Rolón, Director
of Human Rights of the Ministry of Public Health and Social Welfare; Sonia Chávez Galeano, Head of
Execution and Monitoring of Judgments; and, Stella Azuaga, Director General of the National Service for
Juvenile Offenders; and (c) for the representatives of the victims: Carlos Marecos Aponte, Community
Leader; Oscar Ayala Amarrilla, Julia Cabello Alonso and Jacob Nathaniel Kopas, from the organization
Tierraviva for the indigenous peoples of the Chaco.

2
Cf. Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No.
104, para. 131; García Asto and Ramírez Rojas v. Peru. Compliance with judgment. Order of the Court of
July 12, 2007, fourth considering paragraph, and Molina Theissen v. Guatemala. Compliance with
judgment. Order of the Court of July 10, 2007, second considering paragraph.
3
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; García Asto and Ramírez Rojas v. Peru. Compliance with

Select target paragraph3