4. The briefs of February 3, May 6, August 8 and November 23, 2011, and March 23 and October 17, 2012, in which the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American Commission” or “the Commission”) presented its observations on the information forwarded by the State and the representatives (supra having seen paragraphs 2 and 3). CONSIDERING THAT: 1. One of the inherent attributes of the jurisdictional functions of the Court is to monitor compliance with its decisions. 2. According to Article 67 of the American Convention on Human Rights, the judgment of the Court must be complied with promptly and fully by the State. 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, the State must ensure implementation at the national level of the Court’s decisions in its judgments.2 The said obligation to comply with the decisions of the Court includes the State’s obligation to provide information on the measures taken in this regard. Prompt observance of the State’s obligation to inform the Court how it is complying with each aspect ordered by the Court is essential in order to assess the status of compliance with the Judgment as a whole.3 3. The obligation to comply with the decisions in the Court’s judgments corresponds to a basic principle of international law, supported by international case law, according to which, 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 internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty.4 The treaty obligations of the States Parties are binding for all the powers and organs of the State.5 4. 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 is applicable not only with regard to the substantive norms of human rights treaties (that is, those which contain provisions concerning the protected rights), but also with regard to procedural norms, such as those referring to compliance with the decisions of the                                                              2 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. Jurisdiction. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 60, and Case of Gelman v. Uruguay. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of March 20, 2013, third considering paragraph. 3 Cf. Case of the Five Pensioners. Peru. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Court of November 17, 2004, fifth considering paragraph, and Case of Alban Cornejo v. Ecuador. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 5, 2013, seventh considering paragraph. 4 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 Albán Cornejo et al. v. Ecuador. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 5, 2013, fifth considering paragraph. 5 Cf. Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Court of November 17, 1999, third considering paragraph, and Case of Vélez Loor v. Uruguay. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 13, 2013, third considering paragraph. 3