CEJIL

2
Venezuela (hereinafter the “State” or “Venezuela”) that, in accordance with Operative
Paragraph 2 of the Court’s Order of November 17, 2009 (supra Having Seen 2), it should
submit a report, by no later then March 19, 2010, indicating all the measures adopted to
comply with the reparations pending compliance. Upon issuance of the present Order, the
State's report has not been received.
CONSIDERING:
1.
Monitoring compliance with its decisions is an inherent power to the jurisdictional
functions of the Court.
2.
Venezuela is a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights
(hereinafter "the American Convention" or "the Convention") since August 9, 1977, and,
in accordance with Article 62 of the American Convention, it acknowledged the
compulsory jurisdiction of the Court on June 24, 1981.
3.
In accordance with the provisions of Article 67 of the American Convention, the
State should fully comply with the Court's Judgments. Furthermore, Article 68(1) of the
American Convention stipulates, "the State Parties to the Convention undertake to
comply with the Court's decisions in any case to which they are parties." To this end,
States should ensure the domestic implementation of provisions set forth in the Court's
rulings1.
4.
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
abide by their international treaty obligations in good faith (pacta sunt servanda) and, as
set forth by this Court and in Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
of 1969, States cannot, for domestic reasons, neglect their pre-established international
responsibility.2 The treaty obligations of State Parties are binding on all branches and
bodies of the State.3
5.
The States Parties to the Convention must ensure compliance with its
conventional provisions and their effectiveness (effet utile) within their respective
domestic legal systems. This principle applies not only to the substantive provisions of
human rights treaties (i.e., those addressing protected rights), but also to procedural
1

Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104,
para. 60; Case of the "Las Dos Erres Massacre" v. Guatemala. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of
the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 6, 2011, Considering Clause 3, and Case of Gómez Palomino
v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 5,
2011, Considering Clause 3.
2
Cf. International responsibility for the issuance and application of laws that violate the Convention (Art.
1 and 2 of the American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion AO-14/94 of December 9, 1994.
Series A No. 14, para. 35; Case of the "Las Dos Erres Massacre" v. Guatemala, supra note 1, Considering
Clause 4, and Case of Gómez Palomino v. Peru, supra note 1, Considering Clause 4.
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, Considering Clause 3; Case of "Las Dos Erres
Massacre" v. Guatemala, supra note 1, Considering Clause 4, and Case of Gómez Palomino v. Peru, supra note
1, Considering Clause 4.