CONSIDERING THAT: 1. More than seven years have passed since the Court issued a Judgment in the case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison V. Perú (supra Having seen clause 1). 2. The Court has the inherent authority given its jurisdictional power to monitor compliance with its decisions, which also comes from the provisions in Articles 33, 62(1), 62(3) and 65 of the American Convention, 30 and 69 of its Statute and 69 of the Rules of Procedure. 11 As established in Article 67 of the American Convention, the State must comply fully and promptly with the judgments of the Court. Also, Article 68(1) of the American Convention stipulates 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.” To this end, the State must ensure implementation at the national level of the Court’s decisions in its judgments. 12 The obligation to fulfill that provided by the Court includes the State’s duty to inform the Court of the measures adopted to comply with the rulings of the Court, which is essential in order to assess compliance with the Judgment as a whole. 13 3. The obligation to comply with the decisions in the Court’s judgments corresponds to a basic principle of the International law, supported by international jurisprudence, according to which, States must comply with their international treaty obligations in good faith (pacta sunt servanda) and, as this Court has already indicated and as established in Article 27 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a party may not invoke the provisions of domestic law as justification for its failure to carry out its established treaty obligations. 14 The treaty obligations of the States Parties are binding upon all the powers and organs of the State. 15 The States Parties to the Convention must ensure compliance with its provisions and their inherent effects (effet utile) within their respective domestic legal systems. This principle is applicable not only with regard to the substantive norms of human rights treaties (that is, those which contain provisions concerning the protected rights), but also with regard to procedural norms, such as those referring to compliance with the decisions of the Court. These obligations must be interpreted and applied so that the protected guarantee is truly practical and effective, bearing in mind the special nature of human rights treaties. 16 11 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. V. Panamá. Jurisdiction. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, paras. 131-133. 12 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. V. Panamá. Jurisdiction. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, paras. 60 and 131, and Case of Atala Riffo and the Girls V. Chile. Monitoring of Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights November 26, 2013, Considering clause 2. 13 Cf. Case of Five Pensioners V. Peru. Monitoring of Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Court of November 17, 2004, Considering clause 5, and Case of Atala Riffo and the Girls V. Chile. Monitoring of Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights November 26, 2013, Considering clause 2. 14 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 Castillo Petruzi et al. V. Peru. Monitoring of Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights November 17, 1999, Considering clause 4, and Case of Atala Riffo and the Girls V. Chile. Monitoring of Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights November 26, 2013, Considering clause 3. 15 Cf. Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. V. Peru. Monitoring of Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Court of November 17, 1999, Considering clause 3 and Case of Atala Riffo and the Girls V. Chile. Monitoring of Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights November 26, 2013, Considering clause 3. 16 Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein V. Peru. Jurisdiction. Judgment of of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 24, 1999. Series C No. 54, para. 37 and Case of Atala Riffo and the Girls V. Chile. Monitoring of Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights November 26, 2013, Considering clause 4. 5