2 4. The presentations of May 21 and December 29, 2008, by means of which the InterAmerican Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Commission" or "the Inter-American Commission") submitted its remarks to the reports forwarded by the State. Considering: 1. That monitoring compliance with its decisions is a power inherent to the jurisdictional functions of the Court. 2. That Ecuador is a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the American Convention” or “the Convention”) since December 28, 1977, and it acknowledged the Court’s mandatory jurisdiction on July 24, 1984. 3. That Article 68(1) of the American Convention sets forth 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 such purpose, the States must guarantee that the Court’s decisions are implemented domestically.1 4. That in view of the final and non-appealable nature of the judgments of the Court, as established in Article 67 of the American Convention, they should be complied with fully and promptly by the State within the established term. 5. That the obligation to comply with the rulings of the Court conforms to a basic principle of the law on the international responsibility of States, as supported by international case law, under which States are required to comply with their international treaty obligations in good faith (pacta sunt servanda) and, as previously held by the Court and provided for in Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969, States cannot invoke their municipal laws to escape their pre-established international responsibility. The obligations imposed by the Convention upon State Parties bound all powers and authorities of the State.2 6. That the States Parties to the American Convention must ensure 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 (in other words, the clauses on protected rights), but also to procedural provisions, such as the one concerning compliance with the Court’s judgments. These obligations shall be interpreted and applied so that the guarantee protected is truly practical and effective, bearing in mind the special nature of human rights treaties.3 1 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 131; Case of Cantoral-Huamaní and García-Santa Cruz v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Court of April 28, 2009, Considering clause No. 3; and Case of Chaparro-Álvarez and Lapo-Íñiguez v. Ecuador. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Court of April 29, 2009, Considering clause No. 3. 2 Cf. 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 Cantoral-Huamaní and García-Santa Cruz v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment, supra note 1, Considering clause No. 5; Case of Chaparro-Álvarez and Lapo-Íñiguez v. Ecuador. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment, supra note 1, Considering clause No. 5. 3 Cr. Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Jurisdiction. Judgment of September 24, 1999. Series C No. 54, para. 37; Case of Cantoral-Huamaní and García-Santa Cruz v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment, supra note 1, Considering clause No. 6; and Case Chaparro-Álvarez and Lapo-Íñiguez v. Ecuador. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment, supra note 1, Considering clause No. 6.