5 2. That the State of Guatemala has been a State Party to the American Convention since May 25, 1978, and accepted the jurisdiction of the Court on March 9, 1987. 3. That, in view of the final and unappealable character of the judgments of the Court, as established in Article 67 of the American Convention, they should be complied with fully and promptly. 4. That 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.” The treaty obligations of the States Parties are binding for all the powers and functions of the States. 5. 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 internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty1. 6. That from examining the information provided by the State, the representatives of the victim’s next of kin, and the Inter-American Commission, the Court has verified that the State has complied with payment of the compensation it had ordered to the following next of kin of the victim: Richard Blake, Mary Blake, Richard Blake Jr. and Samuel Blake (second operative paragraph of the judgment of January 22, 1999) (supra second having seen paragraph). 7. That from the information received, the Court has verified that the State has punished Vicente Cifuentes López, one of those responsible for the human rights violations committed against Nicholas Chapman Blake (third operative paragraph of the judgment of January 22, 1999). Nevertheless, after examining all the information provided by the parties in their briefs on compliance with the judgment on reparations, the Court considers it essential that the State inform the Court about its obligation to investigate, prosecute and punish all those responsible for the human rights violations decided by the Court (third operative paragraph of the judgment of January 24, 1998, and first operative paragraph of the judgment of January 22, 1999) (supra first and second having seen paragraphs), particularly in relation to the actions taken by the State to investigate prosecute and punish Candelario López Herrera, Hipólito Ramos García and Mario Cano Saucedo, who are allegedly responsible in this case. 8. That, with regard to the aspects that the State has already complied with (supra sixth considering paragraph), this Court deems that it is not pertinent to request any further information. 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; “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; El Amparo case. Compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 28, 2002, third considering paragraph; and 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.