3 The communication of January 12, 2010, whereby the Secretariat, following the instructions of the President of the Court, granted an additional period up until January 22, 2010, and reminded the representatives to submit their observations. CONSIDERING: 1. Monitoring compliance with decisions is an inherent power to the judicial functions of the Court. 2. The Dominican Republic has been a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the American Convention” or “the Convention”) since April 19, 1978, and it acknowledged the Court’s contentious jurisdiction on March 25, 1999. 3. Pursuant to Article 67 of the American Convention, the Court’s judgments shall be fully and promptly complied with by the State. 4. In addition, 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, States must ensure that the rulings set out in the decisions of the Court are implemented at a domestic level.2 5. The obligation to comply with the Court’s judgments corresponds to a basic principle of the law on international responsibility of the State, as supported by international jurisprudence, under which States must comply with their international treaty obligations in good faith (pacta sunt servanda) and, as previously held by the Court and provided for in Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969, States cannot, for domestic reasons, neglect its pre-established international responsibility. The States Parties’ treaty obligations bind all State branches and bodies. 3 6. The States Parties to the Convention must ensure compliance with the provisions thereof and their effectiveness (effet utile) within their respective domestic legal systems. This principle applies not only in connection with the substantive provisions of human rights treaties (i.e. those addressing protected rights) but also in connection with procedural rules, 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 * * * 2 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 131; Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of May 28, 2010, Considering Clause three, and Case of Vargas Areco v. Paraguay. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 20, 2010, Considering Clause three. 3 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; Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama, supra note 2, Considering Clause five, and Case of Vargas Areco v. Paraguay, supra note 2, Considering Clause four. 4 Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Competence. Judgment of September 24, 1999. Series C No. 54, para. 37; Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama, supra note 2, Considering Clause six, and Case of Vargas Areco v. Paraguay, supra note 2, Considering Clause five.