4 compliance with the judgments rendered by the Court […] is a duty of the parties and that its fulfillment is essential to assess progress in compliance with Judgment in the instant case.” 12. The brief of June 10, 2009, whereby the State submitted the report requested in operative paragraph two of the Order issued on February 7, 2008 (supra Having Seen clause 7). 13. The brief of July 16, 2009, whereby the representatives submitted their observations on the report required from the State in operative paragraph two of the Order issued on February 7, 2008. 14. The brief of July 30, 2009, whereby, in connection with the above-mentioned report of the State, the Commission stated that “the available information shows that no steps have been taken” in order to comply with the measures pending fulfillment, and requested that the State be required to “submit a detailed report” on certain points regarding compliance with the Judgments on the merits and reparations. 15. The brief of October 26, 2009, whereby the State submitted a new report regarding compliance with the Judgments on the merits and reparations rendered in the instant case and the observations forwarded by the representatives in that regard on November 12, 2009. Considering: 1. That it is a power inherent in the judicial functions of the Court to monitor compliance with its judgments. 2. That Peru has been a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights since July 28, 1978 and acknowledged the binding jurisdiction of the Court on January 21, 1981. 3. 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.” The treaty obligations of States Parties are binding on all State powers and organs.1 4. That given the final and unappealable nature of the Court’s judgments, as established in Article 67 of the American Convention, said judgments are to be promptly and fully complied with by the State. 5. That the obligation to comply with the Court’s judgments conforms to a basic tenet of the law of the international responsibility of the State, as supported by international case law, under which the 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, domestic laws may not be invoked to justify non-fulfillment of pre-established international 1 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 60; Case of the Caracazo v. Venezuela. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 23, 2009, Considering clause 3, and Case of Cantoral-Huamaní and García-Santa Cruz v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 21, 2009, Considering clause 3.