8 34. The brief of June 27, 2009 by which the representatives of the beneficiaries informed, inter alia, that Messr. Jhon Carlos Rodriguez Quintero, one of the beneficiaries of the provisional measures, was murdered on June 26, 2009 at, approximately, 9 P.M. in the city of Ocaña. 35. The Secretariat’s note of June 29, 2009 in which, following the instructions of the Court, the State was requested to, on a priority basis and no later than July 3, 2009, refer to this fact informed by the representatives (supra Having Seen clause 34) and to present a detailed report in order to indicate all the protective measures that, in compliance with the Order of the Court of May 12, 2007, it has implemented in favor of Rodríguez Quintero family. 36. The brief of July 3, 2009 by means of which the State referred to the request made in the above mentioned note (supra Having Seen clause 35). 37. The communications of July 3, 2009 by means of which the representatives forwarded two briefs addressed to the State and requested the implementation of urgent protective measures in favor of Rodríguez Quintero brothers. Considering: A) Monitoring Compliance with Judgment 1. It is an inherent power of the judicial functions of the Court to monitor compliance with its decisions. 2. That Colombia has been a State Party to the American Convention since July 31, 1973, and that it accepted the binding jurisdiction of the Court on June 21, 1985. 3. That, pursuant to section 67 of the Convention, State parties must fully comply with the judgments entered by the Court in time fashion. Furthermore, section 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.” Therefore, the States must ensure that the rulings set out in the decisions of the Court are implemented at the domestic level 2. 4. 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, 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 invoke their 2 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. V Panama. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 131; Case of Gómez Palomino v. Perú. , Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Court of July 1, 2009, considering clause 3; and Case of the Dismissed Congressional Employees (Aguado Alfaro et al.) V. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with the Judgment. Order of the President of the Court of June 8, 2009; considering clause 3.