-3- CONSIDERING THAT: 1. Monitor compliance with its judgments is a power inherent to the judicial functions of the Court. 2. Peru has been a State Party in the American Convention on Human Rights since July 28, 1978, and acknowledged the competence of the Court on January 21, 1981. 3. Pursuant to Article 68(1) of the American Convention, “[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 States Parties are binding upon all State powers and functions.6 4. Given the conclusive and incontestable nature of the Court’s Judgments, as stated in Article 67 of the American Convention, said judgments are to be promptly and fully complied with by the State. 5. The obligation to comply with the Court’s Judgments conforms to a basic tenet of the law of international responsibility of the State, as supported by international jurisprudence, under which the 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, domestic laws may not be invoked to justify non-fulfillment of pre-established international responsibility. 7 The treaty obligations of States Parties are binding upon all State bodies and organs.8 6. States Parties to the American Convention are required to ensure compliance with the provisions thereof and their effectiveness (effet utile) at a domestic level. This principle applies not only to the substantive provisions of human rights treaties (i.e. those dealing with protected rights), but also with procedural rules, such as those relating to compliance with the Judgments of the Court. Such obligations are to be interpreted and enforced in a manner such that the protected guarantee is truly practical and effective, bearing in mind the special nature of human rights treaties.9 a) Payment of expenses relating to the academic scholarship 6 Cf. Case of Castillo Petruzzi and others v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of November 17, 1999. Series C No. 59, Considering Clause three; 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 four, and Case of De la Cruz Flores v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 1, 2010, Considering Clause three. 7 Cf. International responsibility for the expedition and application of laws in violation of the Convention (Articules 1 and 2 of the American Convention on Human Rights. Consultive Opinion OC- 14/94 of December 9, 1994. Series A No. 14, paragraph 35; Case of Vargas Areco, supra note 5, Considering Clause four, and Case of De la Cruz Flores, supra note 5, Considering Clause five. 8 Cf. International responsibility for the expedition and application of laws in violation of the Convention (Articles 1 and 2 of the American Convention on Human Rights). Consultative Opinion OC- 14/94 of December 9, 1994. Series A No. 14, paragraph 35; Case of Vargas Areco, supra note 5, Considering Clause four, and Case of De la Cruz Flores, supra note 5, Considering Clause three. 9 Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein. Competence. Judgment of September 24, 1999. Series C No. 54, paragraph 37; Case of Vargas Areco, supra note 5, Considering third, and Case of Tristán Donoso v. Panama. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of September 1, 2010, Considering Clause six.