3 9. The Order of the President of November 11, 2008 (supra Having Seen clause No. 6). 10. The private hearing held at the seat of the Court in San José de Costa Rica on January 20, 2009 (supra Having Seen clause No. 7). During said private hearing the State, the Commission and the representatives made reference to the provisional measures in force in the instant case. CONSIDERING: 1. That Guatemala has been a State Party to the American Convention since May 25, 1978 and accepted the jurisdiction of the Court on March 9, 1987. A) Monitoring Compliance with Judgment 2. That monitoring compliance with its decisions is a power inherent in the judicial functions of the Court. 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 purposes, States are required to ensure the implementation of the Court’s rulings at the domestic level.2 4. That, given that the Court’s judgments are final and not subject to appeal, as set out in Article 67 of the American Convention, said judgments are to be promptly and fully complied with by the State within the specified time period. 5. That the obligation to comply with the judgments of the Court conforms to a basic principle of the Law of International Responsibility of States, upheld by international case law, under which States are required to comply with their international treaty obligations in good faith (pacta sunt servanda) and, as previously held by this Court and provided for in Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969, States may not invoke the provisions of its internal law to escape their pre-established international responsibility. The treaty obligations of States Parties are binding on all State powers and organs.3 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 level. This principle is applicable not only with regard to the substantive provisions of human rights treaties (i.e. those dealing with the protected rights) but also with regard to procedural rules, such as those concerning compliance with the decisions of the Court. These obligations are to be interpreted and enforced in a manner such that the Cf. Case of Baena-Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 131; Case of Vargas-Areco v. Paraguay. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. 2 Order of the Court of October 30, 2008, Considering clause No. 3, and Case of Claude-Reyes v. Chile. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Court of November 24, 2008, Considering clause No. 3. 3 Cf. International Responsibility for the Promulgation and Enforcement of Laws in Violation of the Convention (Arts. 1 and 2 of the American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-14/94 of December 9, 1994. Series A No. 14, para. 35; Case of Vargas-Areco v. Paraguay, supra note 2, Considering clause No. 5, and Case of Claude-Reyes v. Chile, supra note 2, Considering clause No. 5.