6 CONSIDERING: 1. It is an inherent power of the judicial functions of the Court to monitor compliance with its decisions. 2. That Guatemala has been a State Party to the American Convention since May 25, 1978, and that it accepted the binding jurisdiction of the Court on March 9, 1987. 3. That, pursuant to section 67 of the American Convention, State parties must fully comply with the judgments entered by the Court in time fashion. Furthermore, Article 68(1) of the American Convention stipulates that “[t]he States Parties to the Convention undertakes to comply with the judgment of the Court in any case to which they are parties.”2 4. 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 responsibility. The treaty obligations of States Parties are binding on all State powers and organs.3 A) REGARDING THE CASE OF FERMÍN RAMÍREZ 5. That, as it has been verified by the Court in its order of September 22, 2006, the State has complied with the provisions of Operative Paragraph thirteen of the Judgment on the merits and reparations delivered by the Court on June 20, 2005, as it effectively made reimbursement of costs and expenses to the Instituto de Estudios Comparados en Ciencias Penales (Institute of Comparative Studies of Criminal Sciences) (supra Having Seen clause 2). * * * 6. That, as to the obligation to conduct, within a reasonable time, a new proceeding against Mr. Fermín Ramírez, satisfying the demands of due process of law, with all the guarantees of hearings and defense for the accused (operative paragraph seven of the Judgment), as well as the obligation to refrain from executing him whichever the outcome of the trial (operative paragraph nine of the Judgment), the State informed that it has conducted a new oral and public proceeding and that the Court for Criminal, Drug-trafficking and Environmental Offenses (Tribunal de Sentencia Penal, Narcoactividad y Delitos contra el Ambiente) 2 See Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 60, and Case of Gómez Palomino v. Perú. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of October 18, 2007, Considering Clause 7 . 3 See International Responsibility for the Promulgation and Enforcement of Laws in Violation of the Convention (Articles 1 and 2 American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-14/94 of September 9, 1994, Series A Nº.14, para. 35; Case of Palamara Iribarne v. Chile. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 30, 2007; Considering Clause five; and Case of Plan de Sánchez Massacre v. Guatemala. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 28, 2007, Considering Clause three.