4 CONSIDERING: 1. That the Dominican Republic is a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter the “American Convention” or the “Convention”) since April 19, 1978 and accepted the binding jurisdiction of the Court on March 25, 1999. 2. That monitoring compliance with its decisions is a power inherent in the judicial functions of the Court. 3. That on September 8, 2005, the Court delivered the Judgment on preliminary exceptions, merits, reparations, and costs in the instant case (supra first Having Seen paragraph). 4. 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 guarantee implementation of the Court’s rulings at the domestic level.1 5. That, given the final and not-subject-to-appeal nature of the Court’s judgments, as established in Article 67 of the American Convention, said Judgments are to be promptly and fully complied with by the State.2 6. That the obligation to comply with the decisions of the Court conforms to a basic principle of the law of international responsibility of the States, as supported by international case law, under which States are required to comply with the international treaty obligations in good faith (pacta sunt servanda) and, as previously held by the Court and provided for in Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969, States cannot invoke their domestic legislation to escape their pre-established international responsibility. The treaty obligations of States Parties are binding on all State powers and organs.3 7. That the States Parties to the American Convention are required to guarantee compliance with the provisions thereof and secure their effects (effet utile) at the domestic law level. This principle applies not only in connection with the substantive provisions of human rights treaties (i.e. those dealing with the protected rights) but 1 Cf. Case of Baena-Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 131; Case of García-Asto and Ramírez-Rojas v. Peru. Compliance with Judgment. Order of July 12, 2007, fourth Considering paragraph, and Case of Molina-Theissen v. Guatemala. Compliance with Judgment. Order of July 10, 2007, second Considering paragraph. 2 Cf. Case of Castillo-Petruzzi. Compliance with Judgment. Order of November 17, 1999. Series C No. 59, second and sixth Considering paragraphs; Case of García-Asto and Ramírez-Rojas, supra note 1, fifth Considering paragraph; and Case of Gómez-Palomino. Compliance with Judgment. Order of October 18, 2007, seventh Considering paragraph. 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 Baena-Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 22, 2002, third Considering paragraph; Case of García-Asto and Ramírez-Rojas, supra note 1, sixth Considering paragraph; and Case of Molina-Theissen, supra note 1, third Considering paragraph.