1. It is an inherent attribute of the jurisdictional functions of the Court 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 recognized the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on January 21, 1981. 3. In accordance with the provisions of Article 67 of the American Convention, the State should comply fully and promptly with the Court’s judgments. Furthermore, 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, States should ensure the domestic implementation of the provisions set forth in the Court’s rulings. 1 4. The obligation to comply with the Court’s rulings conforms to a basic principle of International Law, supported by international jurisprudence, according to which States must abide by their international treaty obligations in good faith (pacta sunt servanda) and, as established by this Court and as set forth in Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969, States cannot, for domestic reasons, neglect their preestablished international responsibility. 2 The treaty obligations of States Parties are binding for all branches and organs of the State. 3 5. The States Parties to the Convention must ensure compliance with its conventional provisions and their effectiveness (effet utile) within their respective domestic legal systems. This principle applies not only to the substantive provisions of human rights treaties (i.e. those addressing protected rights), but also to procedural provisions, such as those concerning compliance with the Court’s decisions. These obligations should be interpreted and enforced in such a manner that the protected guarantee is truly practical and effective, bearing in mind the special nature of human rights treaties. 4 A) Regarding the obligation to adapt domestic legislation to the standards of the American Convention (Operative paragraph 1 of the Judgment) i) Information presented by the parties 6. In the report submitted on March 9, 2007, the State indicated that “[o]n February 1, 2006, the seventh Book [entitled] ‘La Cooperación Judicial Internacional [Judicial International Cooperation]’” and the “new Code of Criminal Procedure, approved in 1 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. Jurisdiction. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 60 and Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras, Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of February 27, 2012, Considering para. 2. 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, and Case of Caballero Delgado and Santana v. Colombia. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 27, 2012, Considering para. 5. 3 Cf. Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of November 17, 1999 and Case of Caballero Delgado and Santana v. Colombia, supra note 2, Considering para. 5. 4 Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Jurisdiction. Judgment of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 24, 1999. Series C No. 54, para. 37 and Case of Caballero Delgado and Santana v. Colombia, supra note 2, Considering para. 6. 2