3 6. The brief of July 15, 2010, through which the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American Commission” or “the Commission”) forwarded its observations to that informed by the State with regard to compliance with the Judgment. Considering that: 1. One of the inherent powers of the jurisdictional functions of the Court is to monitor compliance with its decisions. 2. El Salvador has been a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter, “the American Convention” or "the Convention") since June 23, 1978, and under Article 62 thereof, it accepted the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on June 06, 1995. 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 such purpose, the States must guarantee that the Court’s decisions are implemented domestically.1 4. In view of the final and non-appealable nature of the judgments of the Court, as established in Article 67 of the American Convention, they should be complied with fully and promptly by the State within the established term. 5. The obligation to comply with the rulings of the Court conforms to a basic principle of the law on the international responsibility of States, as supported 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 the Court and provided for in Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969, States cannot invoke their municipal laws to escape their pre-established international responsibility. The obligations imposed by the Convention upon State Parties bound all powers and authorities of the State.2 6. 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 applies not only to the substantive provisions of human rights treaties (in other words, the clauses on protected rights), but also to procedural provisions, such as the one concerning compliance with the Court’s judgments. These obligations shall be interpreted and 1 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 131; Case of Baen Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 28, 2010, Considering Clause Number three, and Case of Vargas Areco v. Paraguay. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 20, 2010, Considering clause number three. 2 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. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment, supra note 1, Considering Clause number five, and Case of Vargas Areco V. Paraguay. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment, supra nota 1, Considering Clause number four.