3 6. The brief dated July 23, 2009, whereby the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter referred to as “the Inter-American Commission” or “the Commission”) forwarded its observations to the report submitted by the State and to the observations forwarded by the representatives. CONSIDERING, 1. That monitoring the compliance with its Orders is a power inherent to the Court’s jurisdictional functions. 2. That Peru is a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter referred to as “the American Convention” or “the Convention”) since July 28, 1978, and it has acknowledged the adversarial jurisdiction of the Court on January 21, 1981. 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 that purpose, the States must ensure the implementation of the Court Orders at domestic level.1 4. That by virtue of the final and unappealable nature of the Court judgments, in accordance with Article 67 of the American Convention, these must be immediately complied with by the State in their totality. 5. That the obligation to comply with the Court judgments corresponds to a basic legal principle of international liability of the State, supported by international case law, according to which every treaty in force is binding upon the parties to it and must be performed by them in good faith (pacta sunt servanda) and, as already pointed out by this Court and pursuant to Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969, a party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty.2 The conventional obligations of the States Parties are binding upon all of the State powers and bodies.3 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, par. 131; Case of Herrera-Ulloa v. Costa Rica. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 9, 2009, Considering Clause No. three, and Case of Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of July 9, 2009, Considering Clause No. three. 1 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, par. 35; Case of Herrera-Ulloa, supra note 1, Considering Clause No. five, and Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre, supra note 1, Considering Clause No. five. 2 3 Cf. Case of Castillo-Petruzzi et al. v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 17, 1999. Series C No. 59, Considering clause No. three; Case of Herrera-Ulloa, supra note 1, Considering Clause No. five, and Case of the Pueblo Bello Massare, supra note 1, Considering Clause No. five.