b) If any obstacle to the implementation of the measures referred to in the
preceding subparagraph is identified, the plan to overcome it must be indicated,
with a specific time frame.
The notes of the Secretariat of the Court of October 7 and November 22, 2011,
in which, on the instructions of the President and of the Court in plenary, respectively,
it reiterated the request made to the State to present the said updated report and
timetable. At the time this order was issued, the State’s report had not been received.
One of the inherent attributes of the jurisdictional functions of the Court is to
monitor compliance with its decisions.
Venezuela has been a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights
(hereinafter also “the American Convention” or “the Convention”) since August 9,
1977, and, pursuant to Article 62 of the Convention, it accepted the binding jurisdiction
of the Court on June 24, 1981.
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 that end, the States are required to ensure the
implementation of the Court’s decisions at the domestic level.1
The States Parties to the American Convention that have accepted the binding
jurisdiction of the Court have the duty to comply with the obligations established by
the Court. This duty includes the State’s obligation to inform the Court of the actions
taken to comply with the Court’s orders in its decisions. Prompt observance of the
State’s obligation to inform the Court of the way in which it is complying with each
measure ordered by the Court is essential in order to assess the status of compliance
with the judgment as a whole.2
The obligation to comply with the provisions of the Court’s judgments
corresponds to a basic principle of international law, supported by international case
law, according to which, the States must comply with their 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 domestic law as justification for its failure
to assume the pre-established international responsibility. The treaty obligations of the
States Parties are binding for all the powers and organs of the State.3


Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104,
para. 60, and Case of Gutiérrez Soler v. Colombia. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of February 8, 2012, third considering paragraph.
Cf. Case of Barrios Altos v. Peru. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American
Court of Human Rights of September 22, 2005, seventh considering paragraph, and Case of Castañeda
Gutman v. Mexico. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human
Rights of January 18, 2012, sixth considering paragraph.
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 Castañeda Gutman, supra note 2, fourth considering


Select target paragraph3