3 3. The briefs of July 31, August 3 and December 21, 2005, and August 25 and December 22, 2008, and June 1st and 23, 2009, whereby the State furnished information germane to compliance with the Judgment. 4. The briefs of February 14 and September 30, 2008, January 16 and July 10, 2009 whereby the Centro por la Justicia y el Derecho Internacional (Center for Justice and International Law) (hereinafter, “CEJIL”) and the Asociación Pro Derechos Humanos (Human Rights Association) (hereinafter, “APRODEH,”) representatives of the victims and their next of kin (hereinafter, the “representatives) submitted their comments on the State’s report on compliance with the Judgment. 5. The briefs of March 10 and November 6, 2008 and February 4 and August 26, 2009, whereby the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter, the “Commission”) submitted its comments on the information provided by the State on compliance with the Judgment. Considering: 1. It is an inherent power of the judicial functions of the Court to monitor compliance with its decisions. 2. That Peru is a State Party to the Convention since July 28, 1978, and accepted the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on January 21, 1981. 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.” For such purpose, States are required to guarantee implementation of the Court’s rulings at the domestic level.1 4. That, in consideration of Article 67 of the American Convention which stipulates that the judgment of the Court shall be final and shall not be subject to appeal, such judgment shall be fully and promptly complied with by the State. 5. That the obligation to comply with the rulings of the Court conforms to a basic principle of law regarding the international responsibility of the State. That is, States must comply with their international treaty obligations in good faith (pacta sunt servanda) and, as this Court has previously stated and is set forth in Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969, they cannot invoke their municipal laws to escape their preestablished international responsibility. The State Parties’ obligations under the Convention bind all State branches and organs.2 6. That the States Parties to the Convention must ensure compliance with its provisions and their inherent effects (effet utile) within their respective domestic legal systems. This principle applies not only in connection with the substantive provisions of human rights 1 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 60; Case of the Caracazo v. Venezuela. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 23, 2009; Considering clause No. 3, and Case of Cantoral-Huamaní and GarcíaSanta Cruz v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 21, 2009, Considering clause No. 3. 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; Case of the Caracazo v. Venezuela, supra note 1, Considering clause No. 5, and Case of Cantoral-Huamaní and García-Santa Cruz v. Peru, supra note 1, Considering clause No. 5.