3 disappearance and alleged death of the victims, and the location of their mortal remains. With regard to the payment of pecuniary compensations, they pointed out that they would submit their observations in a subsequent report. 15. The brief of September 22, 2009, whereby the Commission forwarded its observations to the information provided by the State and to the brief of the representatives. CONSIDERING: 1. That monitoring the compliance with its Orders is an inherent power to the jurisdictional functions of the Court. 2. That Colombia is a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter referred to as “the Convention” or “the American Convention”) since July 31, 1973, and it has acknowledged the mandatory jurisdiction of the Court on June 21, 1985. 3. That 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 that matter, the States must guarantee the implementation of the Court Orders at domestic level.1 4. That by virtue of the final and unappealable nature of the Court judgments, as set forth by Article 67 of the American Convention, these must be immediately complied with by the State in their totality. 5. That the obligation to comply with the court Orders corresponds to a basic legal principle of international liability of the State, supported by international case law, according to which the States must fulfill their international conventional obligations in good faith (pacta sunt servanda) and, as already pointed out by this Court and as set forth by Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969, a party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform.2 The conventional obligations of the States Parties are binding to all of the State’s powers and bodies.3 1 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Jurisdiction. Judgment of November 28, 2003, Series C No. 104, par. 131; Case of Caracazo v. Venezuela. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of October 23, 2009, Considering Clause No. three, and Case of Cantoral-Huamaní and García-Santa Cruz v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 21, 2009, Considering Clause No. three. 2 Cf. International Responsibility for the Promulgation and Enforcement of laws in Violation of the Convention (Articles 1 and 2 of the American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-14/94 of December 9, 1994, par. 35; Case of Caracazo v. Venezuela, supra note 1, Considering Clause No. five, and Case of Cantoral-Huamaní and García-Santa Cruz v. Peru, supra note 1, Considering Clause No. five. 3 Cf. Case of Castillo-Petruzzi et al. v. Peru. Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 17, 1999. Series C No. 59, Considering Clause No. three; Case of Caracazo v. Venezuela, supra note 1, Considering Clause No. five, and Case of Cantoral-Huamaní and García-Santa Cruz v. Peru, supra note 1, Considering Clause No. five.