2 3. The briefs of February 4, April 3 and December 30, 2009, and March 15, 2010, whereby the Republic of Paraguay (hereinafter "the State" or "Paraguay") reported on the compliance with the Judgment (supra Having Seen 1). 4. The briefs of September 14, 2009, and May 4, 2010, whereby the representatives of the victims (hereinafter "the representatives") presented its observations on the reports submitted by the State (supra Having Seen 3). 5. The communications from May 8, 2009, and May 13, 2010, whereby the InterAmerican Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter "the Commission" or "Commission") presented its observations on the reports submitted by the State (supra Having Seen 3). 6. The notes of the Secretary of February 19 and March 24, 2010, whereby, following the instructions of the plenary of the Court, it responded to the query submitted by the State on December 30, 2009, on "the criteria used by [the Court] to calculate the accrued interest in [the] case." CONISDERING THAT: 1. Monitoring compliance with its decisions is a power inherent to the judicial functions of the Court. 2. Paraguay is a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter "the Convention") since August 24, 1989, and acknowledged the jurisdiction of the Court on March 26, 1993. 3. In accordance with the provisions of Article 67 of the Convention, the judgments of the Court should be promptly, and fully, implemented by the State. Furthermore, Article 68(1) of the American Convention stipulates that "[t]he States Parties to the Convention undertake to comply with the Court’s ruling in any case to which they are parties." To this end, States should ensure that the provisions provided for in the Court’s Judgments are implemented domestically.1 4. The obligation to comply with the decisions of the Tribunal corresponds to a basic principle of the law on the responsibility of the State, supported by international jurisprudence, under which states must abide by its international treaty obligations in good faith (pacta sunt servanda) and, as noted by the Court and as stipulated in Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969, States cannot, for domestic reasons, neglect its pre-established international responsibility. The conventional obligations of States Parties bind all powers and State bodies.2 The 1 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 60; Case of Heliodoro Portugal V. Panama. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of May 28, 2010, Considering Clause three, andCase of Goiburú et al. V. Paraguay. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 19, 2009, Considering Clause three. 2 Cf. International Responsibility in issuance and application of laws in violation of the Convention (art. 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 Yatama v. Nicaragua. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 28, 2010, Considering Clause 5, and Case of Heliodoro Portugal, supra note 1, Considering Clause four.