3 2. That one of the inherent attributes of the jurisdictional functions of the Court is to monitor compliance with its decisions. 3. That, pursuant to Article 68(1) of the American Convention, “[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.4 4. That, by virtue of the nature of the Court’s judgments as final and not subject to appeal, as established in Article 67 of the American Convention, they must be promptly fulfilled by the State in all of their aspects within the term established to that effect. 5. That the obligation to comply with the rulings of the Court conforms to a basic principle of the law on the international responsibility of States, backed by international jurisprudence, under which States are required to fulfill 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 reasons of domestic order, escape from their pre-established international responsibility. The State Parties’ obligations under the Convention bind all State branches and organs.5 6. That the States Parties to the Convention are required to guarantee compliance with the provisions thereof and their effects (effet utile) at the domestic law level. This principle applies not only to the substantive provisions of human rights treaties (in other words, the clauses on the protected rights), but also to the procedural provisions, such as the one concerning compliance with the Court’s judgments. Such obligations are to be interpreted and enforced in a manner such that the protected guarantee is truly practical and effective, bearing in mind the special nature of human rights treaties.6 7. That those States Parties to the Convention that have accepted the binding jurisdiction of the Court are under a duty to fulfill the obligations set by the Court. This obligation includes the State’s duty to report on the measures adopted to comply with such decisions of the Court. The timely observance of the State’s obligation to inform the Tribunal of how it is complying with each of the points ordered by the latter is fundamental for the evaluation of the status of compliance of the Judgment in its totality.7 4 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 131; Case of Molina-Theissen v. Guatemala. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of August 17, 2009, Considering clause No. 6; and Case of Caracazo v. Venezuela. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 23, 2009, Considering clause No. 3. 5 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. 14, para. 35; Case of the Huango Massacres v. Colombia, Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 07, 2009, Having Seen clause No. 5; and Case of the Caracazo v. Venezuela, supra note 4, Considering clause No. 5. 6 Cf. Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Competence. Judgment of September 24, 1999. Series C No. 54, para. 37; Case of the Huango Massacres v. Colombia. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment, supra note 5, Considering clause No. 6 and Case of the Carachazo v. Venezuela. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment, supra note 4, Considering clause No. 6. 7 Cf. Case of Barrios Altos v. Peru. Monitoring of Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 22, 2005, Considering clause No. 7; Case of Herrera-Ulloa v. Costa Rica Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 09, 2009, Having Seen clause No. 7; and Case of Cantoral-Huamani and García Santa Cruz v. Peru, Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, September 21, 2009, Considering clause No.