7 legal interests, turned into Peruvian currency […] at the exchange rate in force at the time of payment.” In relation to the duty of investigating, the State pointed out that “in coordination with the counsel for the defense of the next of kin of the victim, necessary action [was] being taken to promote the criminal process,” where the Prosecutor “ha[d] recently issued his Opinion finding the defendant responsible and asking for effective punishment.” Finally, the State declared that “two acts and a Judgment of the Constitutional Court are currently in force that could hinder compliance with Judgment on reparations, in relation to the point dealing with the investigation and punishment of those responsible for the disappearance of Ernesto Rafael Castillo Páez.” The State explained that these are Act number 26479 of July 14, 1995 (Amnesty Act) and Act number 26492 of June 30, 1995, as well as the Judgment of the Constitutional Court in record number 013-96-I/TC published on May 9, 1997, “declaring inadmissible the application for unconstitutional nature against those acts.” CONSIDERING: 1. It is an inherent power of the judicial functions of the Court to oversee compliance with its decisions. 2. The State of Peru is a State Party to the American Convention since July 28, 1978, and recognized the competence of the Court on January 21, 1981. 3. 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 promptly and completely comply with them within the term set for this purpose. 4. The Article 68(1) of the American Convention states that: “The States Parties to the Convention undertake to fulfill the Judgment of the Court in any case to which they are parties,” treaty obligations of the States Parties are binding for all branches or bodies of the State. 5. The obligation to comply with the rulings contained in the Judgment of the Court is in accordance with a basic principle of law regarding the international responsibility of the State, backed by international case law, according to which the States must fulfill their international treaty obligations in good faith (pacta sunt servanda) and, as this Court has already stated before and is set forth in Article 27 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, they cannot refuse to fulfill the previously established international responsibility for domestic reasons.3 6. The Court notices the effort and the progress made by the State to comply with the Court Judgments. 7. In monitoring comprehensive compliance with Judgments on the merits and reparations issued in the instant case, and upon analyzing the information supplied by the State, the representatives of the next of kin, and the Inter-American Commission, the Court has verified that the State has complied with the payment of damages for non-pecuniary damage, pecuniary damage, legal expenses and costs, pursuant to points one and five of the Order of the Judgment on reparations. 3 Cf. Bulacio Case. Judgment of September 18, 2003. Series C, Number 100, paragraphs 116-118; Benavides Cevallos Case. Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Court of September 9, 2003, considering three and six; and Baena Ricardo et al Case. Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Court of June 6, 2003, considering four.