detriment of the victims[,] and to remove all obstacles and mechanisms of
fact and of law that have maintained impunity in the instant case, pursuant
to Considering clauses 6 to 9 of[…] [the] Order (operative paragraph eight of
the Judgment[);] and
to carry out a campaign to [raise awareness] in Honduran society
regarding the importance of the protection of children and [youth], to inform
[Honduran society] of the specific protection duties that correspond to the
family, society[,] and the State, and to show the population that children and
[youth] in risky [social] situations are not associated [with] delinquency,
pursuant to Considering Clauses 26 to 29 of [the] Order (operative
paragraph thirteen of the Judgment).

The reports of the Republic of Honduras (hereinafter “the State” or “Honduras”)
regarding the progress of compliance with the Judgment, submitted on April 21 and
October 2, 2009; August 3 and October 1, 2010; and September 9, 2011.
The observations of the victims’ representatives (hereinafter “the representatives”)
on the State reports submitted on February 27 and November 2, 2009; September 13 and
November 2, 2010; and October 12, 2011.
The observations of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter
“the Inter-American Commission” or “the Commission”) on the State reports of April 22 and
November 30, 2009; December 1, 2010; and November 21, 2011.
It is an inherent power of the judicial functions of the Court to monitor compliance
with its decisions.
Honduras [has been] a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights
(hereinafter “the Convention” or “the American Convention”) since September 8, 1977, and
recognized the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on September 9, 1981.
In conformity with Article 67 of the American Convention, the Court’s judgments
shall be fully and promptly complied with by the State. In addition, 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.” Therefore,
States must ensure that the rulings set out in the decisions of the Court are implemented at
the domestic level.1
The obligation to comply with the rulings of the Court corresponds to a basic
principle of law on the international responsibility of the State, supported by international
jurisprudence, according to which States must comply with their international conventional
obligations in good faith (pacta sunt servanda) and, as previously held by the Court and
pursuant to Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969, States
cannot, for reasons of domestic law, neglect the international responsibility which has
Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. Jurisdiction. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 60;
Case of the Yean and Bosico Girls v. The Dominican Republic. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the
Court of October 10, 2011, Considering clause four.


Select target paragraph3