3 2. That Peru has been a State Party to the American Convention (hereinafter, the “American Convention” or the “Convention”) since July 28, 1978, and that it accepted the binding jurisdiction of the Court on January 21, 1981. 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”. Therefore, the States must ensure that the rulings set out in the decisions of the Court are implemented at the domestic level.2 4. That, in consideration of Article 67 of the American Convention, which stipulates that the judgment of the Court shall be final and shall not be subject to appeal, such judgment shall be fully and promptly complied with by the State. 5. That the obligation to comply with the rulings of the Court conforms to a basic principle of the law on the international responsibility of States, under which States are required to fulfill their international treaty obligations in good faith (pacta sunt servanda) and, as previously held by the Court and provided for in Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969, States cannot invoke their municipal laws to escape from their pre-established international responsibilities.3 The treaty obligations of States Parties are binding on all State powers and organs.4 6. That the States Parties to the Convention must ensure compliance with its provisions and their inherent effects (effet utile) within their respective domestic legal systems. This principle applies not only in connection with the substantive provisions of human rights treaties (i.e. those dealing with provisions on protected rights) but also in connection with procedural rules, such as the ones concerning compliance with the decisions of the Court. Such obligations are intended to be interpreted and enforced in a manner such that the protected guarantee is truly practical and effective, taking into account the special nature of human rights treaties.5 7. That those States Parties to the American Convention that have accepted the binding jurisdiction of the Court are under a duty to fulfill the obligations set by the Tribunal. In this sense, Peru must adopt all the necessary measures to effectively comply with the Court's decision of April 6, 2006. This obligation includes the State's duty to inform of the measures adopted to abide by the orders of this Tribunal in said Judgment. Timely fulfillment of the 2 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al v. Panamá. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 131; Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of January 27, 2009, Considering Clause three; and Case of the "Street Children" (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of January 27, 2009, Considering Clause three. 3 Cf. International Responsibility for the Promulgation and Enforcement of Laws in Violation of the Convention (Articles 1and 2 American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-14/94 of September 9, 1994, Series A Nº14, para. 35; Case of Suárez Rosero v. Ecuador. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of March 20, 2009, Considering Clause fourth; and Case of Bámaca Velásquez, supra note 2, Considering Clause five. 4 Cf. Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al v. Perú. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of November 17, 1999. Series C Nº 59, Considering Clause three; Case of Suárez Rosero, supra note 3, Considering Clause fourth; and Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Perú, Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 27, 2009, Considering Clause fourth. 5 Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Perú. Competence. Judgment of September 24, 1999. Series C No. 54, para. 37; Case of Bámaca Velásquez, supra note 2, Considering Clause six; and Case of the "Street Children" (Villagrán Morales et al.), supra note 2, Considering Clause six.