1. One of the inherent attributes of the jurisdictional functions of the Court is to monitor compliance with its decisions. 2. Peru became a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights since July 28, 1978 and acknowledged the jurisdiction of the Court on January 21, 1981. 3. As established in Article 67 of the American Convention, the State must comply fully and promptly with the judgments of the Court. Also, 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 State must ensure implementation at the national level of the Court’s decisions in its judgments. 3 4. 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 State, supported by international case law, according to which, States must comply with their 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. 4 The treaty obligations of the States Parties are binding for all the powers and organs of the State. 5 5. 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 is applicable not only with regard to the substantive norms of human rights treaties (that is, those which contain provisions concerning the protected rights), but also with regard to procedural norms, such as those referring to compliance with the decisions of the Court. These obligations must be interpreted and applied so that the protected guarantee is truly practical and effective, bearing in mind the special nature of human rights treaties. 6 6. The States Parties to the Convention that have accepted the Court’s compulsory jurisdiction must comply with the obligations established by the Court. These obligations include the State’s duty to inform the Court of the measures adopted to comply with the rulings of the Court in its judgments. The prompt implementation of the State’s obligation to report to the Court on how each aspect ordered by the Court is being fulfilled is essential in order to assess the status of compliance with the Judgment as a whole. 7 7. The Court first notes that pursuant to that provided in the Judgment of the Court of September 22, 2009, the State should have provided its first report on compliance on 3 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panamá. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 60, and Case of Abrill Alosilla et al. v. Peru. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of May 22, 2013, third considering paragraph. 4 Cf. International Responsibility for the Promulgation and Enforcement of Laws in Violation of the Convention (Arts. 1 and 2 American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-14/94 of December 9, 1994. Series A No. 14, para. 35, and Case of Abrill Alosilla et al., supra fourth considering paragraph. 5 Cf. Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 17, 1999, third considering paragraph, and Case of Abrill Alosilla et al., supra, fourth considering paragraph. 6 Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Competence. Judgment of September 24, 1999, Series C No. 54, para. 37, and Case of Abrill Alosilla et al., supra, fifth considering paragraph. 7 Cf. Case of Five Pensioners V. Perú. Monitoring of Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 17, 2004, Considering clause five, and Case of Abril Alosilla et al., supra, Considering clause six. 3