3 1. That one of the inherent attributes of the jurisdictional functions of the Court is to monitor compliance with its decisions. 2. 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.” To this end, the State must ensure the implementation of the terms of the Court’s decisions at the domestic level.1 3. That the obligation to comply with the decisions in the Court’s judgments corresponds to a basic principle of the law of the international responsibility of the State, supported by international case law, according to which, a State must comply with its 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 a justification for failing to comply with its treaty obligations.2 The treaty-based obligations of the States Parties are binding on all the powers and organs of the State. 4. 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 is applicable not only to the substantive norms of human rights treaties (that is, those which contain provisions that concern protected rights), but also with regard to procedural norms, such as those that refer to compliance with the decisions of the Court. These obligations shall be interpreted and applied so that the protected guarantee is truly practical and effective, bearing in mind the special nature of human rights treaties.3 * * * 5. That the State advised that, on December 20, 2004, it had delivered to victim’s next of kin a total of US$698,000.00 (six hundred and ninety-eight thousand United States dollars) in compliance with the payment of compensation ordered by the Court for pecuniary damages, non-pecuniary damages, and costs and expenses. 6. That the representatives confirmed the payment of the said compensation to the beneficiaries of the compensation within the time established by the Court for compliance with this measure. 1 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 131; Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community. Supervision of compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 2, 2007, second considering paragraph, and Case of Yatama. Compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 29, 2006, third considering paragraph. 2 Cf. Internacional 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; the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Supervision of compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 2, 2007, third considering paragraph, and Case of Yatama. Compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 29, 2006, fifth considering paragraph. 3 Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein. Competence. Judgment of September 4, 1999. Series C No. 54, para. 37; Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Supervision of compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 2, 2007, Fourth considering paragraph, and Case of Yatama. Compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 29, 2006, sixth considering paragraph.