-4payments ordered in the Court’s judgments [...] is transmitted, and their cheques are at the Treasury Office, awaiting collection by”: inter alia, Carlos Alberto Torres Benvenuto, Javier Mujica Ruiz Huidobro, Guillermo Alvarez Hernández, Reymert Bartra Vásquez and Sara Elena Castro Remy, widow of Maximiliano Domingo Gamarra Ferreira. In this regard, on the instructions of the President, Peru was requested to clarify, by July 3, 2006, at the latest, whether the said official communication formed part of the documentation to be included in the files on monitoring compliance of all the judgments it mentioned and should therefore be included in this case and transmitted to the parties so that they could submit any observations they deemed pertinent. The State has not replied to this request. CONSIDERING: 1. That one of the inherent attributes of the jurisdictional functions of the Court is to monitor compliance with its decisions. 2. That Peru has been a State Party to the American Convention since July 28, 1978, and, pursuant to Article 62 thereof, accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court on January 21, 1981. On February 28, 2003, the Court delivered the judgment on merits, reparations and costs in this case (supra Having seen paragraph 1). 3. That 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.” To this end, the States must ensure the implementation of the decisions in the Court’s judgments at the domestic level.1 4. That, in view of the final and unappealable character of the judgments of the Court, as established in Article 67 of the American Convention, the State should comply with them fully and promptly. 5. The provisions of Article 65 of the American Convention with regard to “the cases in which a State has not complied with its judgments.” 6. That the OAS General Assembly reiterated in its Resolution AG/RES. 2223 (XXXVI-O/06):2 4. […] the need for states parties to provide, in a timely fashion, the information requested by the Court in order to enable it to fully meet its obligation to report to the General Assembly on compliance with its judgments. 7. 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 1 Cf. Case of the Constitutional Court. Compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 7, 2006, third considering paragraph; Case of Ricardo Canese. Compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 2, 2006, third considering paragraph; and Case of the 19 Tradesmen. Compliance with judgment. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of February 2, 2006, third considering paragraph. Resolution adopted in the fourth plenary session held on June 6, 2006, entitled “Observations and Recommendations on the Annual Report of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights”, fourth operative paragraph. 2