2 Hurtado submitted his observations on the report filed by the State (supra Having Seen clause No. 7) and requested again that the Court hold a hearing. 9. The writ of January 20, 2009, whereby the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter, the “Commission” or the “Inter-American Commission”) presented its observations on the report submitted by the State (supra Having Seen clause No. 7.) 10. The private hearing held by the Court at its venue in San Jose, Costa Rica, on February 1, 2010.1 CONSIDERING: 1. That one of the inherent attributes of the jurisdictional functions of the Court is to monitor compliance with its decisions. 2. That Peru ratified the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter, the “American Convention”) on July 28, 1978, and recognized the contentious 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.” The treaty obligations of the States Parties are binding for all the powers and functions of the States.2 4. That by virtue of the definite and not subject to appeal nature of the Court judgments, according to what is set forth in Article 67 of the American Convention, these must be immediately and completely fulfilled by the State. 5. That the obligation to comply with the decisions in 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 treaty.3 1 Pursuant to Article 62 of the Rules of Procedures, the Court held the hearing together with the following commission of Judges: Judge Manuel Ventura-Robles, Judge Margarette May Macaulay, Judge Rhadys Abreu-Blondet and Judge Eduardo Vio-Grossi. The following parties were present at the hearing: by the Inter-American Commission, Lilly Ching and Silvia Serrano; Gustavo Adolfo Cesti-Hurtado; by the representatives, attorneys Alberto Borea-Odría and Julio Silva-Santiesteban, and Carmen Cardó de Cesti, and by the State, attorneys Delia Muñoz and Erika Ramos, attorneys César San Martín and Stephen Haas, Ambassador Moisés Tambini del Valle, Gustavo Lembcke, Minister of the Peruvian Embassy in Costa Rica, and David Tejada, First Secretary of the Peruvian Embassy in Costa Rica. 2 Cf. Case of Baena-Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003, Series C No. 104, para. 60; Caso of La Cantuta v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 20, 2009, Considering clause No. 5, and Case of Cantoral-Benavides v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 20, 2009, Considering clause No. 5. 3 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 the “Five Pensioners” v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 24, 2009, Considering clauses No. 6, and Case of Ivcher-Brostein v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 24, 2009, Considering clause No. 5.