3 approved by the inter-American Court via paragraph 144 of the Judgment, and with a view to achieving compliance therewith, the State undertakes to organize a meeting within a period of 30 days between the Minister of Justice, Security and Human Rights, acting in his capacity as head of the Interior Security Council, and the Human Rights Secretary, as head of the Federal Human Rights Council, and the representatives of the petitioners in the instant case. [b.] At such meeting, the parties shall define the contents of an agenda aimed at adjusting the laws and regulations to the international human rights standards on the subject of the police authority to make warrantless detentions other than in cases of flagrante delicto, in the terms of operative paragraph 5 of the Judgment of September 18, 2003; a work timeline shall also be defined, and a decision shall be reached regarding the consultation mechanism ordered by the Inter-American Court. [c.] The State shall adopt such measures as it may deem adequate to implement any agreements reached at said meeting regarding the agenda, timeline, makeup and call. Considering: 1. That monitoring compliance with its decisions is a power inherent in the judicial functions of the Court. 2. That Argentina has been a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter the “Convention” or the “American Convention”) since September 5, 1984, and that it recognized the Court’s jurisdiction on the same day. 3. That Article 68(1) of the American Convention provides 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 by virtue of the nature of the Court’s judgments as final and not subject to appeal, as established in Article 67 of the American Convention, the State must promptly and fully comply with them within the term established therefor. 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.2 The State Parties’ obligations under the Convention bind all State branches and organs.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 Goiburú et al. v. Paraguay. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of August 6, 2008, third considering clause; and Case of Servellón-García et al. v. Honduras. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of August 5, 2008, third considering clause. 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 Bámaca-Velásquez v. Guatemala. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 11, 2008, twentyfourth considering clause, and Case of Vargas-Areco v. Paraguay. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of October 30, 2008, fifth considering clause. 3 Cf. Case of Castillo-Petruzzi et al. v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of November 17, 1999. Series C No. 59, third considering clause; Case of