2 4. The brief of May 11, 2010, through which the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter the “Commission” or the “Inter-American Commission”) presented its observations on the information submitted by the State and the representatives (supra Having Seen 2 and 3). CONSIDERING: 1. Monitoring compliance with its decisions is a power inherent to the judicial functions of the Court. 2. Argentina has been a state party to the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter the “American Convention” or the “Convention”) since September 5, 1984, and that it recognized the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on that same date. On March 31, 1989, Argentina ratified the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture (hereinafter the “Convention against Torture” or the “IACPPT”). 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.” Thus, the treaty obligations of states parties bind all State branches and bodies.1 4. Given the final and incontestable nature of the Court’s judgments as provided for in Article 67 of the American Convention, the States must promptly and fully comply with said judgments. 5. The obligation to comply with the rulings of the Court constitutes a basic principle of law on the international responsibility of States. That is, States are required to fulfill their international treaty obligations in good faith (pacta sunt servanda) and, as previously held by the Court and as set forth in Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969, States may not invoke the provisions of its internal laws as justification to neglect its existing international responsibility.2 6. The States Parties to the Convention must guarantee compliance with the provisions thereof and their effectiveness (effet utile) within their domestic legal systems. This principle applies not only to the substantive provisions of human rights treaties (i.e. those addressing protected rights), but also to procedural provisions, such as those concerning compliance with the Court’s decisions. These obligations should be interpreted and enforced in such a manner such that the protected guarantee is truly practical and effective, bearing in mind the special nature of human rights treaties.3 1 Cf. Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of November 17, 1999, Considering Clause three; 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; and, Case of Tristán Donoso v. Panama. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 1, 2010, Considering Clause 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 De la Cruz Flores v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment, supra note 1, Considering clause five; and, Case of Tristán Donoso v. Panama. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment, supra note 1, Considering Clause five. 3 Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Competence. Judgment of September 24, 1999. Series C No. 54, para. 37; Case of De la Cruz Flores v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment, supra note 1, Considering