-13dissenting opinions of the judge ad hoc […] and because the publication was made in a newspaper with limited circulation, in smaller print than the print used for advertisements, so that its impact was reduced”; and (c) Regarding the obligation to designate a day dedicated to the children who disappeared during the internal armed conflict for different reasons, the designation made by the State should refer “explicitly […] to the phenomenon of disappearance. The term ‘lost’ suggests that the victims’ next of kin were responsible.” CONSIDERING: 1. That it is an inherent attribute of the jurisdictional functions of the Court to monitor compliance with its decisions. 2. That El Salvador has been a State Party to the American Convention since June 23, 1978, and accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court on June 6, 1995. 3. That, Article 68(1) of the American Convention establishes 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.” Consequently, the State must ensure the implementation of the decisions in the Court’s judgments at the domestic level.1 4. That in view of the definitive and unappealable nature of the judgments of the Court, pursuant to Article 67 of the American Convention, the State must comply with them promptly and completely. 5. That the obligation to comply with the decisions in 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 fulfill 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 internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty.2 The treaty obligations of the States Parties are binding for all the powers and organs of the State. 6. That the States Parties to the Convention must ensure compliance with its provisions and their inherent effects (effet utile) within their respective domestic legal systems. This principle is applicable with regard not only to the substantive norms of human rights treaties (that is, those which contain provisions on the protected rights), but also with regard to the procedural norms, such as those referring to compliance with the decisions of the Court. These obligations shall be 1 Cf. Case of Bámaca Velásquez. Compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 4, 2006, third considering paragraph; Case of the “Five Pensioners”. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 4, 2006, third considering paragraph; and Case of the 19 Tradesmen. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 2, 2006, third considering paragraph. 2 Cf. Case of Bámaca Velásquez. Compliance with judgment, supra note 1, fifth considering paragraph; Case of the “Five Pensioners”, supra note 1, seventh considering paragraph; and Case of the 19 Tradesmen, supra note 1, fifth considering paragraph.