3 1. Monitoring compliance with its decisions is an inherent power to the jurisdictional functions of the Court. 2. Columbia is a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter "the American Convention" or "the Convention") since July 31, 1973 and acknowledged the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court on June 21, 1985. 3. In accordance with the provisions of Article 67 of the American Convention, the State should fully comply with the Court's Judgments. Furthermore, Article 68(1) of the American Convention stipulates that "the State Parties to the Convention undertake to comply with the decision of the Court in any case to which they are parties." To this end, States should ensure the domestic implementation of the provisions set forth in the Court's rulings1. 4. The obligation to comply with the Tribunal's rulings conforms to a basic principle of international law, supported by international jurisprudence, under which States must abide by their international treaty obligations in good faith (pacta sunt servanda) and, as set forth by this Court and in Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969, States cannot, for domestic reasons, ignore their pre-established international responsibility.2 The treaty obligations of State Parties are binding on all branches and bodies of the State3. 5. The States Parties to the Convention must guarantee compliance with the provisions thereof and their effectiveness (effet utile) within their domestic legal systems. This principle applies not only to the substantive provisions of human rights treaties (i.e., those addressing protected rights), but also to procedural provisions, 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 a) Regarding operative paragraph thirteen of the Judgment 1 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 60; Case of Vargas Areco v. Paraguay. Monitoring compliance with Judgment. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of November 24, 2010, Considering Clause three, and Case of Almonacid Arellano et al v. Chile. Monitoring compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 18, 2010, Considering Clause three. 2 Cf. International responsibility for the issuance and application of laws that violate the Convention (Art. 1 and 2 of the American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion AO-14/94 of December 9, 1994. Series A No. 14, para. 35; Case of Vargas Areco v. Paraguay, supra note 1, Considering Clause four, and Case of Dismissed Congressional Workers (Aguado Alfaro et al) v. Peru. Monitoring compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 24, 2010, Considering Clause three. Cf. Case Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment Order of the Court of November 17, 1999, Considering Clause three; Case of Vargas Areco v. Paraguay, supra note 1, Considering Clause four, and Case of Dismissed Congressional Workers (Aguado Alfaro et al) v. Peru, supra note 2, Considering Clause five. Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Competence. Judgment of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 24, 1999. Series C No. 54, para. 37; Case of Vargas Areco v. Paraguay, supra note 1, Considering Clause five, and Case of Dismissed Congressional Workers (Aguado Alfaro et al) v. Peru, supra note 2, Considering Clause six.