136 authorities testified that they were granted, there are no supporting documents in the body of evidence that would allow this Tribunal to corroborate that they were received by the victims’ next of kin.536 556. In 2004, the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic signed a contract with a credit institution containing the terms of reference for administration of the Support Fund in the Municipality of Juárez, Chihuahua. In its first regular session on June 29, 2005, the Advisory Council issued “general guidelines for the administration, application and delivery of the resources that, as financial assistance, will be granted to the relatives of the victims of the murders of women in the Municipality of Juárez, Chihuahua.”537 557. The Court observes that, according to the Support Fund’s guidelines, “pursuant to the applicable legislation, the financial support granted by the Fund to the victims’ next of kin does not constitute compensation for or reparation of damage.”538 The Court also notes that on November 11, 2005, the authorized representatives of the fund delivered a cheque to said persons, requiring them to make the following declaration: ....and adds, under oath to speak the truth, that she has received the remains of her daughter, who was called [name of each one of the three victims]; consequently, she will not require any competent authority to conduct a DNA analysis or any other procedure in this regard, because the human remains returned on this occasion correspond, without any doubt, to those of her daughter.539 558. The Tribunal states that, in no way, can these resources be considered a form of reparation to the victims for pecuniary damage, because the State itself acknowledged that they could not be considered a form of reparation, and because they were granted on condition that the next of kin waive their right of access to justice and to know the truth. Based on the principle nemo auditur propriam turpitudinem allegans (no one should profit from their own wrong or bad intention), which has been included in Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and the jurisprudence of the Tribunal,540 the State cannot invoke in its own favor an agreement signed with the victims that does not comply with the Convention to justify that it has made reparation to them. 536 Cf. testimony of witness Camberos Revilla, supra note 524, folios 2977 to 2985; official letter No. Jur/0223/2007 issued by the Chihuahua Women’s Institute on May 4, 2004 (case file of attachments to the answer to the application, volume XLI, attachment 133, folios 15173 and 15174), and testimony of witness Galindo López, supra note 525, folios 3305 to 3309. 537 Cf. Office of the Special Prosecutor for the Investigation of Crimes related to the Murders of Women in Ciudad Juárez, Informe Final, supra note 87, folio 14598. 538 Cf. decision No. CA/001/05 of the Advisory Council on the application of the Financial Support Fund for the Families of Victims of Murders of Women in the Municipality of Juárez, Chihuahua, of the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic of July 29, 2005 (case file of attachments to the answer to the application, volume XL, attachment 59, folio 14919). 539 Cf. certification of delivery of support from the Support Fund to: Benita Monárrez Salgado on November 11, 2005; Daniel Ramos Canales, on December 13, 2005; Cecilia Herrera Monreal, Juan Antonio Herrera Monreal, Benigno Herrera Monreal and Adrián Herrera Monreal on November 27, 2006; Irma Monreal Jaime on April 27, 2006, and Irma Josefina González Rodríguez on November 11, 2005, (case file of attachments to the answer to the application, volume XLI,folios 15057 to 15061,15069 to 15072, and case file of attachments to the the final written arguments of the State, volume XLIV, attachment 128, folios 16303 to 16305, 16327 to 16329, and volume XLV, attachment 131, folios 16527 to 16530). 540 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, para. 35, and Case of Castillo Páez v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of April 3, 2009, fifth considering paragraph.