13 responsible for human rights violations and when it had been determined that it had not conducted a serious and effective investigation, it was possible to file the action for judicial review. The Commission also indicated that the Code of Criminal Procedure established that the procedural subjects in a specific case have legal capacity to file this recourse. However, neither Nodelia Parra nor her son took part as such in the proceeding that concluded with an acquittal in 1990, because there was no civil party. Consequently, it indicated that it was for the Attorney General to make effective the re-establishment of the rights affected by the crimes that had been committed. Despite the foregoing, it advised that on October 9, 2003, the Office of the Attorney General had rejected the appeal filed by the representatives of the victims, terminating once and for all the possibility of knowing the truth. CONSIDERING: 1. That one of the inherent attributes of the jurisdictional functions of the Court is to monitor compliance with its decisions. 2. That Colombia has been a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights since July 31, 1973, and accepted the obligatory jurisdiction of the Court on June 21, 1985. 3. That, in this respect, 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.” 4. That 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, a State must comply with its 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 treaty1. 5. That, in view of the final and non-appealable character of the judgments of the Court, as established in Article 67 of the American Convention, they should be complied with fully and promptly. * * * 6. That, in the course of monitoring full compliance with the judgments on merits and reparations delivered in the instant case, and having examined the information provided by the State, the Commission, and the representatives of the victims and their next of kin, the Court has verified that: a) Payment of the amounts corresponding to reparations and reimbursement of the expenses of María Nodelia Parra Rodríguez (first and second operative paragraph of the judgment on reparations) has already 1 Cf. Benavides Cevallos case. Compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 9, 2003, third considering paragraph; Baena Ricardo et al. case. Compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of June 6, 2003, fourth considering paragraph; and “The Last Temptation of Christ” (Olmedo Bustos et al.). Compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 28, 2002, third considering paragraph.