3 2. The letters of the Secretary of the Court (hereinafter “the Secretary”) dated June 22, July 19, September 26, October 29, and November 16 of 2007, through which, following the instructions of the President of the Court, it was requested that the State present detailed information on the measures taken to comply with the outstanding operative paragraphs of the Judgment on the merits, reparations, and costs issued in this case (supra Having Seen paragraph 1). The deadline for the presentation of said report expired on May 15, 2007 without the state submitting the requested information. CONSIDERING: 1. That monitoring the compliance with its decisions is an inherent jurisdictional power of the Court. 2. That Peru is a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights as of July 28, 1978, and recognized as binding the jurisdiction of the Court on January 21, 1981. 3. That the obligation to comply with the decisions of the Court is a basic principle of law regarding the international responsibility of the State, which is supported by international jurisprudence, according to which the States must comply with their international conventional obligations in good faith (pacta sunt servanda).1 4. That the States Parties to the Convention must guarantee the compliance with provisions under the convention and their own effects (effet utile) at the internal level. This principle applies not only with regard to the substantive provisions of the human rights treaties (that is to say, those which express provisions regarding the protected rights,) but also with regard to the procedural rules, such as those referring to the compliance with the decisions of the Court. These obligations must be interpreted and applied so that the protected guarantee is truly practical and efficient, taking into account the special nature of the human rights treaties.2 5. That the States Parties to the American Convention that have recognized the binding jurisdiction of the Court must comply with the obligations established by the Tribunal. This obligation includes the State’s duty to inform the Court of the measures adopted toward with the orders of the Tribunal in said Judgments. The State’s timely observance of its obligation to inform the Tribunal of how it is complying with each of the operative paragraphs ordered by the latter is fundamental for the evaluation of the status of compliance of the case.3 Likewise, the 1 See the Cases of Castillo Páez, Loayza Tamayo, Castillo Petruzzi et al., Ivcher Bronstein and of the Constitutional Court V. Peru. Monitoring of Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, June 1, 2001, Considering paragraph 2; Case of the Yean and Bosico Girls V. the Dominican Republic. Monitoring of Compliance with Judgement. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, November 28, 2007, Considering paragraph 6, and Case of Palamara Iribarne V. Chile. Monitoring of Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, November 30, 2007, Considering paragraph 5. 2 See the Case of Ivcher Bronstein. Competence. Judgment on September 24, 1999. Series C No. 54, paragraph 37; Case of the Yean and Bosico Girls V. the Dominican Republic. Monitoring of Compliance with the Judgment, supra note 1, Considering paragraph six. 3 See the Case of Barrios Altos V. Peru. Monitoring of Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, November 17, 2004, Considering paragraph seven; Case of Gómez Palomino V. Peru. Monitoring of Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, October 18, 2007, Considering paragraph five, and Case of García Asto and Ramirez Rojas