3 pointed out that “since November 27, 2003 there ha[d] been no progress in compliance with the judgment in the […] case.” 7. The August 17, 2004 brief, in which Herlinda Ibáñez reported that her husband, Manuel Aguirre Roca, one of the victims in the instant case, died on June 20, 2004. WHEREAS: 1. Oversight of compliance with its decisions is an authority inherent to the judicial functions of the Court. 2. Peru has been a State Party to the American Convention (hereinafter “the American Convention” or “the Convention”) since July 28, 1978, and it accepted the adjudicatory jurisdiction of the Court on January 21, 1981. 3. 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.” For this, the States must ensure domestic implementation of the orders issued by the Court in its rulings.1 4. In view of the final and unappealable nature of the judgments of the Court, pursuant to Article 67 of the American Convention, the State must fully and promptly comply with them. 5. The obligation to comply with the orders issued by the Court in its rulings is in accordance with a basic principle of Law regarding the international responsibility of the State, backed by international jurisprudence, according to which the States must carry out their international treaty obligations in good faith (pacta sunt servanda) and, as this Court has stated and is set forth in Article 27 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, they may not refuse to undertake the international responsibility already set forth by arguing domestic reasons.2 The treaty obligations of the States Party are binding for all the branches and bodies of the State. 6. The States Party to the Convention must ensure compliance with the treaty provisions and their effective application (effet utile) in their respective domestic legal systems. This principle applies not only to substantive provisions of the human rights treaties (that is, those containing provisions regarding the rights protected), but also with respect to the procedural provisions, such as those pertaining to compliance with the decisions of the Court. These obligations must be interpreted 1 See Case of Baena-Ricardo et al.. Competence. November 28, 2003 Judgment. Series C No. 104, para. 131. 2 See Matters of: Liliana Ortega et al., Luisiana Ríos et al., Luis Uzcátegui, Marta Colomina and Liliana Velásquez. Provisional Measures. May 4, 2004 Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Whereas seven; Case of Baena-Ricardo et al., supra note 1, para. 128; and Case of Barrios Altos. Compliance with Judgment. November 28, 2003 Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Whereas six.