3 11. The communications of March 19, 2010, by which the Secretariat, following the instructions of the President, informed the Organización de Trabajadores Víctimas that it had received briefs from different persons who alleged having the legal representation of said Organization; therefore, it requested the corresponding clarification. 12. The brief of March 19, 2010, by which three victims, until such date represented by the Organización de Trabajadores Víctimas, appointed two attorneys as their legal representatives. 13. The communications of March 30, 2010, by which the Secretariat, following the instructions of the President, requested said attorneys and the Organización de Trabajadores Victimas to elucidate, no later than April 7 2010, on the scope of the representation of said attorneys. Furthermore, they were informed that, in case of disagreement as to said appointment, the Court could proceed to appoint a common intervener. 14. The briefs of April 22 and 23, 2010, by which the Organización de Trabajadores Víctimas, among other aspects, referred to the compliance with the Judgment. 15. The communications of May 4, 2010, by which the Secretariat, following the instructions of the President, confirmed receipt of the briefs submitted by the Organización de Trabajadores Víctimas and requested the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter, “the Inter-American Commission” or the “Commission”) to forward the observations to the state report as soon as possible. 16. The brief of May 5, 2010, by which the Inter-American Commission forwarded the observations to the state report and to the observations forwarded by the victims’ representatives. CONSIDERING THAT: 1. It is an inherent power of the judicial functions of the Court to monitor compliance with its decisions. 2. Panama has been a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter, the “American Convention” or the “Convention”) since June 22, 1978, and that it accepted the binding jurisdiction of the Court on May 9, 1990. 3. 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.” Therefore, the States must ensure that the rulings set out in the decisions of the Court are implemented at the domestic level.1 1 See Case of Baena Ricardo et al. V Panama. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 131; Case of Cesti Hurtado V. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 4, 2010, considering clause three and case of El Amparo V. Venezuela. Monitoring Compliance with the Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 4, 2010, Considering Clause three.