9 date, the status of that proceeding had not changed since the State’s previous report. 33. The note of María Elena Loayza Tamayo of November 18, 2003, which she delivered personally to the President of the Court on that date, and in which she provided information on the general status of compliance with the judgment on reparations. She indicated that the State had complied with the financial reparation and by “reinstating her in her place of employment of the Ministry of Education, in the College of Dramatic Art.” She also affirmed that the State had not complied with the following elements: 1) reinstating her in the university teaching sector in private or similar institutions, “in the understanding that the amount of [her] salary and other benefits would be equal to the amount of [her] remunerations in the public and private sectors at the time of [her] detention, with amounts adjusted at the date of the judgment to allow for inflation”; 2) paying her the earned salary in State institutions that she was owed; and 3) annulling the criminal, police and legal records relating to the domestic proceeding against her. She also indicated that her physical and mental health “had deteriorated as a result of the traumatic situation to which [she was] subjected.” She therefore requested the Court to order “provisional measures regarding [her] physical and mental health and integrity.” CONSIDERING: 1. That one of the inherent attributes of the jurisdictional functions of the Court is to monitor compliance with its decisions. 2. That the State of Peru has been a State Party to the American Convention since July 28, 1978, and accepted the jurisdiction of the Court on January 21, 1981. 3. That 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.” The treaty obligations of the States Parties are binding for all the powers and organs of the States. 4. That, in view of the final and non-appealable character of the judgments of the Court, as established in Article 67 of the American Convention, they should be complied with fully and promptly. 5. That the obligation to comply with the provisions of the Court’s judgments corresponds to a basic principle of the law of the international responsibility of the State, supported by international case law, according to which, a State must comply with its 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 its domestic law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty1. 1 Cf. Benavides Cevallos case. Compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 9, 2003, third considering paragraph; Baena Ricardo et al. case. Compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of June 6, 2003, fourth considering paragraph; “The Last Temptation of Christ” (Olmedo Bustos et al.). Compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 28, 2002, third considering paragraph; El Amparo case. Compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 28, 2002, third considering paragraph; and International Responsibility for Enacting and Applying Laws that violate the Convention (Arts. 1 and 2 of the American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC14/94 of December 9, 1994. Series A No. 14, para. 35.