3 1. That monitoring compliance with its decisions is a power inherent in the judicial functions of the Court. 2. That Venezuela has been a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the American Convention”) since August 9, 1977, and that it accepted the binding jurisdiction of the Court on June 24, 1981. 3. That, pursuant to Article 68(1) of the American Convention, “[t]he States Parties to the Convention undertake to comply with the judgment of the Court in any case to which they are parties.” For such purpose, States are required to guarantee implementation of the 2 Court’s rulings at the domestic level. The conventional obligations of the States Parties are binding on all State powers and organs. 4. That, given the final and not-subject-to-appeal nature of the Court’s judgments as established in Article 67 of the American Convention, said judgments are to be promptly and fully complied with by the State within the term established to that effect. 5. That the obligation to comply with the judgments of the Court conforms to a basic principle of the law of the international responsibility of States, as supported by international case law, under which States are required to comply with 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 domestic laws to escape their pre-established international responsibility.3 The treaty obligations of States Parties are binding on all State powers and organs.4 6. That the States Parties to the Convention are required to guarantee compliance with the provisions thereof and their effects (effet utile) at the domestic law level. This principle applies not only in connection with the substantive provisions of human rights treaties (i.e. those dealing with the protected rights) but also in connection with procedural rules, such as the ones concerning compliance with the decisions of the Court. Such obligations are to be interpreted and enforced in a manner such that the protected guarantee is truly practical and effective, bearing in mind the special nature of human rights treaties.5 2 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. V. Panama. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 131; Case of Bámaca-Velásquez V. Guatemala. Monitoring of Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of January 27, 2009, considering clause No 3, and the Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) Vs. Guatemala. Monitoring of Compliance with Judgment. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of January 27, 2009, considering clause No 3. 3 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; Case of Suárez-Rosero V. Ecuador. Monitoring of Compliance with Judgment Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of March 20, 2009, considering clause No 4, and Case of Bámaca-Velásquez, supra, note 2, considering clause No 5. 4 Cf. Case of Castillo-Petruzzi et al. V. Peru. Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 17, 1999. Series C No. 59, considering clause No 3; Case of Suárez-Rosero, supra note 3, considering clause No 4, 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 No 4. 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 No 6; and Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.), supra note 2, considering clause No 6.