4 8. That, in its Order of September 8, 2003, the Court has already established that the facts presented by the Commission in its request reveal prima facie the existence of a situation of extreme gravity and urgency for the life, safety and freedom of express of Marta Colomina and Liliana Velásquez1. In the seventh operative paragraph, it also decided that “following its first communication (of September 15, 2003), [the State should] continue reporting to the [...] Court, every two months, on the provisional measures” (supra second having seen paragraph). 9. That when the Court ordered the State to adopt provisional measures in favor of Marta Colomina and Liliana Velásquez, pursuant to Article 63(2) of the American Convention, it also ordered it to provide information on the implementation of those measures (supra second having seen paragraph). 10. That the Commission has indicated that the State has not complied with the provisional measures adopted in favor of Marta Colomina and Liliana Velásquez (supra fifth having seen paragraph). 11. That, after examining the file on provisional measures, the Court has verified that Venezuela has presented information only once. Moreover, the information submitted does not reflect effective implementation of the precautionary measures requested by this Court, regarding the adoption of the measures necessary to protect the life, safety and freedom of expression of Marta Colomina and Liliana Velásquez, the participation of the beneficiaries in the planning and implementation of such measures, the investigation of the facts that gave rise to their adoption in order to identify those responsible and punish them, and the submission of the State’s reports every two months. Thus, the time limit for presenting the pending report on urgent measures expired on August 14, 2003, and for presenting the pending report on provisional measures on November 15, without either report having been received. 12. That the State has the obligation to investigate the facts that gave rise to the adoption of provisional measures in favor of Marta Colomina and Liliana Velásquez. 13. That Article 68(1) of the 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.” Thus, the States must comply with their obligations under international conventions in good faith (pacta sunt servanda) as established in Article 26 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which codifies a basic principle of general international law and, as the Court has already indicated and as Article 27 of this Vienna Convention provides, a State may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to respect the international responsibility that has been established.2 1 Cf. Marta Colomina y Liliana Velásquez v. Venezuela. Provisional Measures. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of September 8, 2003, fifth considering clause. 2 Cf. Benavides Cevallos case. Compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 9, 2003, third considering clause; Baena Ricardo et al. case. Compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of June 6, 2003, fourth considering clause; “The Last Temptation of Christ” case (Olmedo Bustos et al.). Compliance with judgment Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 28, 2002, third considering clause; El Amparo case. Compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 28, 2002, third considering clause; and International Responsibility for the Promulgation and Enforcement of Laws in