18. […] pay the [amounts established] in paragraphs 266, 272, 278, and 289 of the […] Judgment, as compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages and the reimbursement of the costs and expenses, as [applicable], within a time period of one year, beginning from the notification of the […] Judgment, [under] the terms of paragraphs 265 and 266, 269 to 272, 275 to 278, and 284 to 289 [thereof]. 2. The briefs of the Republic of Guatemala (hereinafter “the State” or “Guatemala”) of August 12 and November 4 and 25, 2011, whereby it submitted information regarding the monitoring of compliance with the Judgment. 3. The briefs of the victims’ representatives (hereinafter “the representatives”) of September 12 and November 4, 21, and 30, 2011, whereby they presented their observations on the State’s reports. 4. The briefs of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American Commission” or “the Commission”) of October 4 and November 24 and 30, 2011, whereby it submitted its observations regarding the State reports. CONSIDERING THAT: 1. It is an inherent power of the judicial functions of the Court to monitor compliance with its decisions. 2. Guatemala has been a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” or “the American Convention”) since May 25, 1978, and that it recognized the Court’s contentious jurisdiction on March 9, 1987. 3. In conformity with Article 67 of the American Convention, the Court’s judgments shall be fully and promptly complied with by the State. In addition, Article 68(1) of the American Convention stipulates 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.” Therefore, States must ensure that the rulings set out in the decisions of the Court are implemented at the domestic level.1 4. The obligation to comply with the rulings of the Court corresponds to a basic principle of law on the international responsibility of the State, supported by international jurisprudence, according to which the States must comply with their international conventional obligations in good faith (pacta sunt servanda) and, as previously held by the Court and pursuant to Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969, States cannot, for reasons of domestic law, neglect pre-established international 1 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. Jurisdiction. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 60; Case of Montero Aranguren et al. (Detention Center of Catia) v. Venezuela. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Court of August 30, 2011, Considering clause three, and Case of the Yean and Bosico Girls v. The Dominican Republic. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Court of October 10, 2011, Considering clauses three and four. 2