pointed out that the said Code stipulated that “[a]s of the entry into force of the […] Code, and once the Judicial Disciplinary Tribunal and the Judicial Disciplinary Court have been established, the Commission for the Operation and Restructuring of the Judicial System shall cease to exercise its competences and, consequently, any cases that are underway shall be suspended and shall be referred to the Judicial Disciplinary Tribunal.”39 However, the Court observed that, according to the evidence in the file of that case, to date, the disciplinary organs have not been established.40 Thus, the Court stated that, “although at the date of the delivery of this Judgment, the said Code of Ethics has been promulgated, the Court orders that it be implemented as soon as possible in order to ensure the impartiality, independence and stability of the disciplinary organs to be created.”41 21. Regarding the other operative paragraphs pending compliance, the Court reiterates that, when this Court has ruled on the merits and the reparations and costs in a case submitted to its consideration, the State must observe the provisions of the Convention that refer to compliance with this judgment or judgments.42 Under Article 67 of the American Convention, “[t]he judgment of the Court shall be final and not subject to appeal. In case of disagreement as to the meaning or scope of the judgment, the Court shall interpret it at the request of any of the parties, provided the request is made within ninety days from the date of notification of the judgment.” Moreover, 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.” The treaty-based obligation of the States Parties to comply promptly with the Court’s decisions is binding on all the powers and organs of the State. 22. The obligation to comply with the provisions of the Court’s decisions corresponds to a basic principle of the law on the international responsibility of the State, supported by international case law, according to which, a State must comply with its international treaty obligations in good faith (pacta sunt servanda) and, as this Court has already indicated and as established in Article 27 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty.43 The treaty-based obligations of the States Parties are binding on all the powers and organs of the State;44 in other words, all the powers of the State (Executive, Legislative, Judicial, or other branches of public authority) and other public or State authorities of any level. All these authorities have the obligation to comply with international law. This interpretation is derived directly from the principle contained in the said Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. corresponding sanctions (articles 29 to 33), as well as the characteristics, terms and stages of the disciplinary proceeding (articles 51 to 90). 39 Case of Chocrón Chocrón v. Venezuela, para. 66. 40 Cf. Case of Chocrón Chocrón v. Venezuela, paras. 109, 141 and 163. 41 Case of Chocrón Chocrón v. Venezuela, para. 163. 42 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Jurisdiction. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 60. 43 Cf. International Responsibility for the Promulgation and Enforcement of Laws in Violation of the Convention (Arts. 1 and 2 of the American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-14/94 of December 9, 1994. Series A No. 14, para. 35, and Case of Barrios Altos v. Peru. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 7, 2012, fourth considering paragraph. 44 Cf. Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of November 17, 1999. Series C No. 59, third considering paragraph, and Case of Barrios Altos v. Peru. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 7, 2012, fourth considering paragraph. 11