3 Commission and the representatives discussed the obligations that have not yet been fulfilled. 5. At said hearing, the State and the representatives submitted documentation. In addition, the Court requested the State to submit a written report regarding compliance with the Judgment. In such report, the State was to describe the measures adopted in order to comply with the three obligations that remained unfulfilled and, whenever possible, provide the specific dates when it expects to comply with said obligations. Specifically, the State was required to provide detailed information about: a) the measures adopted to allow Mr. Jorge Carpio’s next of kin, especially Karen Fischer, access to the court record, and b) the steps taken to further the investigation of this case, including dates and specific results. This requirement was reiterated by the Secretariat of the Court (hereinafter “the Secretariat”) in the letters dated January 28 and March 2, 2009. To date, the State has failed to submit the required information. CONSIDERING: 1. That 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. 2. That monitoring compliance with its decisions is a power inherent in the judicial functions of the Court. 3. That, pursuant to Article 68(1) of the American Convention, “[t]he States Parties to the Convention undertake to comply with the judgment of the Court in any case to which they are parties.” For such purpose, States are required to ensure implementation of the Court’s rulings at the domestic level.2 4. That, given that the Court’s judgments are final and not subject to appeal, as set out in Article 67 of the American Convention, said judgments are to be promptly and fully complied with by the State. 5. That the obligation to comply with the Judgments of the Court conforms to a basic principle of the Law of International Responsibility of States, upheld by international case law, under which States are required to comply with their international treaty obligations in good faith (pacta sunt servanda) and, as previously held by this Court and provided for in Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969, States may not invoke the provisions of its internal law to escape their pre-established international responsibility. The treaty obligations of States Parties are binding on all State powers and organs.3 Human Rights Executive Policy Coordinating Commission (COPREDEH); Delia Marina Dávila Salazar, Agent, y Vivian Nohemí González Westendorff, Deputy Agent. 2 Cf. Case of Baena-Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 131; Case of Herrera-Ulloa v. Costa Rica. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the President of the Court of June 2, 2009, Considering clause No. 4; Case of the Dismissed Congressional Employees (Aguado-Alfaro et al.) v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the President of the Court of June 8, 2009, Considering clause No. 3. 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 Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the President of the Court of May 20, 2009,