4 10. The communication of September 1, 2010, whereby the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter "the Inter-American Commission" or "the Commission") submitted information that was presented by a victim, that it represents, on the status of compliance with the measures ordered in the Judgment. 11. The brief of October 6, 2010, whereby the State submitted a report "in order to inform about the steps tak[en] by [the] Specialized Supranational [Public Prosecutor] with regards to compliance with the Judgment." 12. The briefs of October 13 and November 6, 2010, whereby the common intervener submitted its observations on the report submitted by the State on October 6, 2010, and requested the Court, pursuant to Article 65 of the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter "the Convention" or "the Convention"), noted in its annual report that the State had not complied with the Judgment, on the grounds that "it ha[d] failed to comply with any measure so ordered [...] there[in]. " 13. The briefs of November 23, 2010, whereby the Commission presented its observations on the report submitted by the State. CONSIDERING: 1. Monitoring compliance with its decisions is an inherent power to the jurisdictional functions of the Court. 2. Peru is a State Party to the American Convention since July 28, 1978 and acknowledged the jurisdiction of the Court on January 21, 1981. 3. In virtue of the definitive and non-appealable judgments of the Court, in accordance with the provisions of Article 67 of the American Convention, the State should promptly and fully comply with the Court's Judgments. 4. Article 68(1) of the American Convention stipulates that "[t]he State Parties to the Convention undertake to comply with the decision of the Court in any case to which they are parties." To this end, States should ensure the domestic implementation of the provisions set forth in the Court's rulings.1 5. In order to fulfill the mandate to monitor compliance with the commitment made by States Parties under Article 68(1) of the Convention, the Court must first determine the degree of compliance with its decisions. For this, the Court must monitor that the States effectively comply with the reparations ordered in the judgment2. 6. The obligation to comply with the Tribunal's rulings conforms to a basic principle of international law, supported by international jurisprudence, under which States must 1 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 131; Case of Vargas Areco v. Paraguay. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment Order of the Court of November 24, 2010, Considering Clause three, and Case of Moiwana v. Surinam. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment Order of the Court of November 22, 2010, Considering Clause three. 2 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al, supra note1, para. 101; Case of El Amparo v. Venezuela. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment Order of the President of the Court of December 18, 2009, Considering Clause four, and Case of Apitz Barbera et al. ("Corte Primera de lo Contencioso Administrativo" [First Administrative Court]) v. Venezuela. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment Order of the President of the Court of December 18, 2009, Considering Clause four.