5 12. The State’s report of November 13, 2007 stating that “in September 2007, the SEGEPLAN invited the parties involved in creating the Myrna Mack scholarship to a work meeting.” At that meeting, the Myrna Mack Foundation, AVANCSO and representatives from COPREDEH were informed of the impossibility of naming the project a "scholarship", since under the National Scholarship and Student Loans Trust’s (FINABECE) rules in force, it would be possible to receive applications and select a candidate for financial aid, but under a "non-reimbursable financial aid program", which was accepted by the Myrna Mack Foundation and AVANCSO. Based on the foregoing, SEGEPLAN promoted the scheme and started to receive applications from Anthropology graduates from the Universidad de San Carlos and the Universidad del Valle in Guatemala. 13. The representatives’ submission of comments of November 19, 2007, wherein they stated that in October 2007 the “Myrna Mack” non-reimbursable financial aid programme was opened and closed. Ten applications for the programme were received from anthropology students. Furthermore, they stated that it was agreed with the Exchange Academic Council that on November 21, 2007, the beneficiary of such programme would be determined. Finally, they stated that the official scholarship granting ceremony would be pending compliance. 14. The Commission’s submission of comments of November 22, 2007, wherein it stated that it appreciated the progress made towards establishing the Myrna Mack scholarship, and that it looked forward to receiving information about the outcome of the application process and the launch of the programme. CONSIDERING: 1. That Guatemala has been a State Party to the American Convention (hereinafter “the American Convention” or “the Convention”) since May 25, 1978, and that it accepted the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on March 9, 1987. 2. That monitoring compliance with its decisions is a power inherent in the judicial functions of the Court. 3. That, pursuant to Article 67 of the American Convention, the Court’s Judgments must be fully complied with as soon as possible. In addition, Article 68(1) of the American Convention establishes 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.” For such purpose, States are required to guarantee implementation of the Court’s rulings at the domestic level.1 1 Cfr. Case of Barrios Altos v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 22, 2002, Considering paragraph 2; Case of Gómez-Palomino v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of October 18, 2007, Considering paragraph 7; and Case of García-Asto and Ramírez-Rojas v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 12, 2007, Considering paragraph 6; and Case of Bámaca-Velásquez v. Guatemala. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 10, 2007, Considering paragraph 3.