8 check the State had offered her. On the other hand, she informed that Peru has recently, in 2005, paid her the equivalent to one third of the compensatory amount (S/ 322,000.00 new soles) and that in December 2005 they had paid the outstanding balance, leaving the payment of the legal interests generated by the delay incurred in pending. Finally, she repeated her request that the Court clarify to the State that the interests must be computed as of the month of August 2001 and therefore that it maintain the value of the compensation and its purchasing power. WHEREAS: 1. That the supervision of the compliance of its decisions is a power inherent to the jurisdictional functions of the Court. 2. That Peru is a State Party in the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the American Convention” or “the Convention”) since July 28, 1978 and it acknowledged the Court’s competence on January 21, 1981. 3. That Article 68(1) of the American Convention states 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.” For this the States must ensure the implementation at a domestic level of that ordered by the Tribunal in its decisions.1 4. That in virtue of the definitive and unappealable nature of the judgments of the Court, pursuant to that established in Article 67 of the American Convention, these must be complied with in a prompt manner by the State in a comprehensive manner. 5. That the obligation to comply with that stated in the decisions of the Court correspond to a basic principle of law on the State’s international responsibility, backed up by the international jurisprudence, according to which the States must comply with their international conventional obligations with good faith (pacta sunt servanda) and, as has already been stated by this Court and in Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of the Treaties of 1969, they may not, due to reasons of domestic law, ignore the international responsibility already established.2 The conventional obligations of the States Parties are binding for all the powers and bodies of the State. 6. That the States Parties to the Convention must guarantee compliance of the conventional stipulations and their effects (effet utile) in the realm of their respective domestic law. This principle is applied not only in relation to the substantive norms of the human rights treaties (that is, those that include stipulations regarding the protected rights), but also in relation to procedural norms, such as those that refer to the compliance of the decisions of the Court. These obligations must be interpreted 1 Cfr. Case of Cantos. Compliance with Judgment. Ruling of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 28, 2005, third whereas clause; Case of Barrios Altos. Compliance with Judgment. Ruling of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 22, 2005, third whereas clause, and Case of Herrera Ulloa. Compliance with Judgment. Ruling of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 12, 2005, third whereas clause. 2 Cfr. Case of Cantos. Compliance with Judgment. Ruling of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 28, 2005, fifth whereas clause; Case of Barrios Altos. Compliance with Judgment. Ruling of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 22, 2005, fifth whereas clause, and Case of Herrera Ulloa. Compliance with Judgment. Ruling of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 12, 2005, fifth whereas clause.