3 on merits, reparations, and costs adopted in the present case (supra Having Seen paragraph 1). The term for the presentation of said report expired on December 19, 2006 without the State having forwarded the information requested. CONSIDERING: 1. That it is an inherent power of the jurisdictional functions of the Court to monitor compliance with its decisions. 2. That Peru is a State Party in the American Convention since July 28, 1978, and it accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court on January 21, 1981. 3. That the obligation to comply with 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 fulfill its international treaty obligations in good faith (pacta sunt servanda).2 4. That the States Parties to the American Convention must ensure compliance with its provisions and their inherent effects (effet utile) within their respective domestic legal systems. This principle is applicable with regard not only to the substantive norms of human rights treaties (that is, those that include stipulations regarding all protected rights), but also to the procedural norms, such as those referring to compliance with the decisions of the Court. These obligations shall be interpreted and applied so that the guarantee protected is truly practical and effective, bearing in mind the special nature of human rights treaties.3 5. That the States Parties to the American Convention that have accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court have the duty to comply with the obligations established by the Tribunal. This obligation includes the State’s duty to inform the Court of the measures adopted in order to comply with that ordered by the Tribunal in the mentioned Judgment. The timely observance of the State’s obligation to inform the Tribunal of how it is complying with each of the matters issued by the latter is fundamental in order to evaluate compliance of the case.4 Likewise, the General Assembly of the OAS has 2 Cfr. Case of García Asto y Ramírez Rojas. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of July 12, 2007, Considering clause number six; Case of Molina Theissen. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 10, 2007, Considering clause number three; Case of Bámaca Velásquez. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 10, 2007, Considering clause number three. 3 Case of number number number Cfr. Case of Ivcher Bronstein. Competence. Judgment of September 24, 1999. Series C No. 54, para. 37; García Asto and Ramírez Rojas. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment, supra note 2, Considering clause seven; Case of Molina Theissen. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment, supra note 2, Considering clause four; Case of Bámaca Velásquez. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment, supra note 2, Considering clause four. 4 Cfr. Case of Barrios Altos. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on November 17, 2004, Considering clause number seven; Case of García Asto and Ramirez Rojas. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 12, 2007, Considering clause number eight; Case of Yatama. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment, supra note 1, Considering clause number seven, and Case of Ricardo Canese. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 22, 2006, Considering clause number thirteen.