2 representative of the victim and his next-of-kin to submit, as soon as possible, their observations on the State reports, since the timeframe to do so had expired without any observations being presented." The representative submitted no observations on the State reports. 5. The briefs of June 26, July 18 and October 12, 2007, September 25, 2008, May 8 and September 17, 2009, whereby the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter "the Inter-American Commission" or "the Commission") presented its observations on reports submitted by the State. 6. The note of the Secretariat of the Court of September 23, 2009, whereby, following the Presidency's instructions, it requested the State to submit a new report on compliance with the Judgment, by November 17, 2009, at the latest. 7. The note of the Secretariat of May 31, 2010, whereby, following the instructions of the President of the Court, it requested the State to submit, as soon as possible, the report that was requested through the note of September 23, 2009 (supra Having Seen 6), since it had not been submitted. 8. The communication of June 30, 2010, whereby Chile stated that it would forward "in the coming days" the requested report on progress made regarding compliance with the Judgment. 9. The brief of August 23, 2010, and its annexes, whereby the State presented the report on compliance with the Judgment requested on September 23, 2009 (supra Have Seen6). 10. The notes of the Secretariat of October 20, November 2, 9 and 19, 2010, whereby, following the instructions of the President of the Court, it requested that the representative and the Inter-American Commission submit their observations on the last State report as soon as possible (supra Having Seen 9). These observations have not been submitted to the Court as of yet. CONSIDERING: 1. Monitoring compliance with its decisions is an inherent power to the jurisdictional functions of the Court. 2. Chile is a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter "the American Convention" or "the Convention") since August 21, 1990, and it acknowledged the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on that same day. 3. In accordance with the provisions of Article 67 of the American Convention, the judgments of the Court should be promptly and fully complied with by the State. Furthermore, Article 68(1) of the American Convention stipulates that "[t]he State Parties to the Convention undertake to comply with the decision of the Court in any case to which they are parties." To this end, States should ensure domestic implementation as set forth by the Court in its decisions.1 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 1 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 131; Case Albán Cornejo et al. v. Ecuador. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Court of August 27, 2010, Considering Clause three, and Case of Tristán Donoso v. Panama. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment Order of the Court of September 1, 2010, Considering Clause three.