2 1. That supervising compliance with its decisions is one of the attributions inherent to the Court’s jurisdictional functions. 2. That Colombia ratified the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter, “the American Convention” or “the Convention”) on July 31, 1973 and accepted the jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court on June 21, 1985, pursuant to Article 62 of the Convention. 3. 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, States must ensure implementation at the national level of the decisions of the Court contained in its judgments.1 4. That, in view of the final and unappealable nature of the judgments of the Court, as established in Article 67 of the American Convention, they should be fully and promptly complied with by the State. 5. That the obligation to comply with the decisions contained in the judgments of the Court arises from a basic principle of the international responsibility of States, supported by international case law, according to which they must fulfill their international treaty obligations in good faith (pacta sunt servanda), and, as the Court has already noted and pursuant to Article 27 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, said States may not invoke domestic law to refrain from assuming already established international responsibility.2 States Parties’ treaty obligations to comply with Court decisions promptly bind all State powers and bodies.3 6. That the States Parties to the Convention must guarantee compliance with its provisions and their inherent effects (effet utile) within their respective domestic legal systems. This principle applies not only to the substantive provisions of human rights treaties (that is, those concerning the protected rights), but also to procedural provisions, such as those referring to compliance with Court decisions. These obligations must be interpreted and applied in such a way that the protected 1 Cfr. Case of Baena-Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003, Series C No. 104, para. 131; Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community v. Nicaragua. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 7, 2008, Considering clause 3; and Case of Claude-Reyes et al. v. Chile. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of June 10, 2008, Considering clause 3. 2 Cfr. 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 Raxcacó-Reyes v. Guatemala. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 09, 2008, Considering clause 4; and Case of Claude-Reyes et al. v. Chile. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment, supra note 1, Considering clause 5. 3 Cfr. Case of Baena-Ricardo et al. Competence, supra note 1, para. 60; Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment, supra note 1, Considering clause 5; and Case of Claude-Reyes et al. v. Chile. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment, supra note 1, Considering clause 6.