3. The briefs of March 30, 2011, and March 30 and May 18, 2012, wherein the Republic of Paraguay (hereinafter "the State" or "Paraguay") reported on its compliance with the Judgment (supra having seen paragraph 1). 4. The briefs of May 19, 2011, and May 10, 2012, wherein the representatives of the victims (hereinafter "the representatives") submitted their comments on reports submitted by the State (supra having seen paragraph 3). 5. The briefs of June 23, 2011, and May 29, 2012, wherein the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter "the Inter-American Commission" or "the Commission") submitted its comments to the reports provided by the State (supra having seen paragraph 3). CONSIDERING THAT: 1. Monitoring compliance with its rulings is an inherent power of the Court’s judicial functions. 2. Paraguay has been a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the American Convention”) since August 24, 1989, and accepted the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on March 26, 1993. 3. By virtue of the final and unappealable nature of the judgments of the Court as established in Article 67 of the American Convention, the State must comply with them immediately and fully. Article 68(1) of the American Convention establishes that, “The States Party to the Convention undertake to comply with the judgment of the Court in any case to which they are parties.” To that end, States must ensure internal implementation of the Court’s orders.1 4. The obligation to comply with Court judgments is based on a basic principle of international law of States, upheld by international jurisprudence, according to which States are required to fulfill their international treaty obligations in good faith (pacta sunt servanda) and, as the Court has previously indicated and pursuant to Article 27 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, they may not, for domestic reasons, fail to accept the international responsibility that has been established.2 The obligations of State Parties under the Convention are binding upon all State authorities and agencies.3 1 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. Jurisdiction. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 60, and Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico. Monitoring of Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of June 28, 2012, third considering pragraph. 2 Cf. 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; and Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Monitoring of Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of June 28, 2012, fifth considering paragraph. 3 Cf.Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the InterAmerican Court of November 17, 1999, third considering paragraph, and Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama, fifth considering paragraph. 2