2 representatives”) presented their observations to the State’s reports or in relation with the state of compliance of the Judgments. The communications of June 8 and July 23, 2009, and June 3, September 17 and 30, 2010, through which the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights (hereinafter, “the Commission” or “the Inter-American Commission”) presented its observations regarding the state of compliance with the Judgment. 6. CONSIDERING: That Guatemala has been a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the American Convention”) since May 25, 1978, and that it accepted the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on March 9, 1987. 1. That monitoring compliance with its decisions is a power inherent to the judicial functions of the Court. 2. 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 a domestic level.2 3. 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.3 4. 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 jurisprudence, under which States are 5. 2 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 131; Case of Tristán Donoso v. Panama. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 1, 2010, Considering Clause three, and Case of Kimel v. Argentina. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 15, 2010, Considering Clause three. 3 Cf. Case of Barrios Altos v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of November 22, 2002, Considering Clause four; Case of De la Cruz Flores v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 1, 2010, Considering Clause four, and Case of Tristán Donoso v. Panama, supra note 2, Considering Clause four.