3 6. The briefs of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the InterAmerican Commission” or “the Commission”) filed on May 13 and August 4, 2010, through which it presented its observations on the monitoring of compliance with the Judgment. 7. The Secretariat’s communication of July 1, 2010, through which it requested that the representative and the State forward, no later than July 12, 2010, the copy of the publication or, in its case, the original of the corresponding parts of the Judgment of the present case, which according to the representative was made on March 3, 2010, in “El Diario El Comercio.” The communications from the representative of July 7, 2010, and from the State of July 14, 2010, through which they forwarded the previously mentioned copies. Considering: 1. That monitoring compliance with its decisions is a power inherent to the jurisdictional functions of the Court. 2. That Ecuador is a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the American Convention” or “the Convention”) since December 28, 1977, and it acknowledged the Court’s mandatory jurisdiction on July 24, 1984. 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 such purpose, the States must guarantee that the Court’s decisions are implemented domestically.1 4. That in view of the final and non-appealable nature of the judgments of the Court, as established in Article 67 of the American Convention, they should be complied with fully and promptly by the State within the established term. 5. That the obligation to comply with the rulings of the Court conforms to a basic principle of the law on the international responsibility of States, as supported by international case law, under which 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, States cannot invoke their municipal laws to escape their pre-established international responsibility. The obligations imposed by the Convention upon State Parties bound all powers and authorities of the State.2 1 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 131; Case of Baen Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 28, 2010, Considering Clause Number three, and 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 number three. 2 Cf. International Responsibility for the Promulgation and Enforcement of Laws in Violation of the Convention (Arts. 1 and 2 of the American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC -14/94 of December 9, 1994. Series A No. 14, para. 35; Case of Baena Ricardo. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment, supra note 1, Considering Clause number five, and Case of Vargas Areco V. Paraguay. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment, supra nota 1, Considering Clause number four.