-43. 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.” This obligation includes the State’s duty to advise the Court of the steps taken to comply with each of the measures ordered, which is essential to the evaluation of the compliance status with the Judgment as a whole 24. To this effect, it should also be noted that pursuant to Article 67 of the American Convention, “[t]he judgment of the Court shall be final and not subject to appeal”, so that once this Court orders a Judgment, it produces the effects of res judicata and must be complied with fully and promptly by the State. 4. The Court affirms that States Parties to the American Convention have the treaty-based obligation to implement promptly and fully, both at an international and domestic level, with the dispositions of the Court included in the Judgments that concern them, obligation that, as is noted in customary international law and has been recalled by the Court, binds all state powers and agencies 25 and, when it’s not met, the State incurs in an international and unlawful act. In this regard, it is necessary to add that, according to customary international law and what has been stated by the Court, when an unlawful act occurs that can be attributed to a State, this creates its international responsibility for the violation of an international norm, giving origin to a new legal relation that consists in the obligation to make reparations 26. As the Court has indicated 27, Article 63(1) of the Convention reproduces the text of a customary norm that constitutes one of the fundamental principles of the law on the international responsibility of States 28. 5. Regarding the compliance with the Judgment in said cases, the Court emphasizes that, despite having passed more than twelve years and more than nine years since the due dates ordered in the Judgments of the cases of Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. and Caesar (supra considering paragraph 1), respectively, and the various requirements made by the Court or its President, the State has not presented any report about its compliance with the Judgments. The State has omitted to report even when during those years the Court issued orders on 2003 and 2007 declaring non-compliance with said obligation to inform in the cases of Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. and Caesar, respectively, and that, subsequently the Court or its Presidency made several requirements. The Court considers that this constitutes noncompliance by Trinidad and Tobago of its duty to advise the Court. The Inter-American 24 Cf. Case of Family Barrios v. Venezuela. Monitoring Compliance with judgment. Order of the Court of September 2, 2015, second considering paragraph. 25 Cf. Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of November 17, 1999, third considering paragraph; Case of Baena Ricardo and others v. Panama. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 131, and Case of De la Cruz Flores v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 02, 2015, forty-second considering paragraph. 26 Cf. Case of Garrido and Baigorria v. Argentina. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 27, 1998. Series C No. 39, para. 40; Case of Ximenes Lopes v. Brazil. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 4, 2006. Series C No. 149, para. 232, and Case of Fontevecchia and D’amico v. Argentina. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 01, 2015, fifth considering paragraph. 27 Cf. Case of Castillo Páez v. Peru. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 1998. Series C No. 43, para. 50, and Case of Granier et al. (Radio Caracas Television) v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 22, 2015. Series C No. 293, para. 360. 28 Cf. Reparation for Injuries Suffered in the Service of the United Nations, Advisory Opinion: I.C.J. Reports 1949, p. 184;Affaire relative à l’Usine de Chorzów (Demande en Indemnité) (Fond), Arrêt Nº 13, le 13 septembre 1928, C.P.J.I. Série A-Nº 17, p. 29; y Affaire relative à l’Usine de Chorzów(Demande en Indemnité) (Compétence), Arrêt Nº 8, le 26 juillet 1927, C.P.J.I. Série A-Nº 9, p. 21.