9 3. That, in this respect, Article 68(1) of the American Convention stipulates 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.” 4. That the obligation to comply with the provisions of the Court’s judgments corresponds to a basic principle of the law of the international responsibility of the State, supported by international case law, according to which, a State must comply with its international treaty obligations in good faith (pacta sunt servanda) and, as this Court has already indicated and as established in Article 27 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a party may not invoke the provisions of its domestic law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty1. 5. That, in view of the final and non-appealable character of the judgments of the Court, as established in Article 67 of the American Convention, they should be complied with fully and promptly. * * * 6. That, from a detailed examination of the information contributed by the State, the representative of the victim and his next of kin, and by the Inter-American Commission, the Court has verified that: a) The fine imposed on Rafael Iván Suárez Rosero was not enforced, and his name was eliminated from the Register of the National Council of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (first operative paragraph of the judgment on reparations of January 20, 1999); b) The payment ordered in favor of Rafael Iván Suárez Rosero and Margarita Ramadán Burbano (subparagraph (a) and (b) of the second operative paragraph of the judgment on reparations of January 20, 1999) has been made; c) The payment of the costs and expenses ordered in favor of Alejandro Ponce Villacís and Richard Wilson (third operative paragraph of the judgment on reparations of January 20, 1999) has been made; d) The payment ordered in favor of the minor, Micaela Suárez Ramadán, by setting up a trust fund, as indicated by this Court in its judgment on reparations of January 20, 1999, in its judgment on interpretation of the judgment on reparations of May 29, 1999, and in its Order of December 4, 2001, is pending compliance; and e) The investigation and punishment of the persons responsible for the human rights violations declared by the Court (sixth operative paragraph of the judgment on merits of November 12,1997) is pending compliance. It should be recalled that, according to the Court’s case law, it is inadmissible to 1 Cf. Benavides Cevallos case. Compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 9, 2003, third considering paragraph; Baena Ricardo et al. case. Compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of June 6, 2003, fourth considering paragraph; and “The Last Temptation of Christ” case (Olmedo Bustos et al.). Compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 28, 2002, third considering paragraph.