2 Republic of Panama (hereinafter “the State” or “Panama”) reported on the status of compliance with the Judgment. 3. The briefs of June 11, 2010, and annexes, and of August 10 and 26, 2010, whereby the victim’s representatives (hereinafter “the representatives”) submitted their observations on that reported by the State regarding compliance with the Judgment. 4. The briefs of July 28, 2010 and annex, and of August 10 and 27, 2010, whereby the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the InterAmerican Commission” or “the Commission”), submitted its observations on that reported by the State with regards to compliance with the Judgment. CONSIDERING THAT: 1. It is an inherent power of the judicial functions of the Court to monitor compliance with its decisions. 2. Panama has been a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter, “the American Convention” or “the Convention”) since June 22, 1978, and that it recognized the obligatory jurisdiction of the Court on May 9, 1990. 3. 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.” Therefore, the States must ensure that the rulings set out in the decisions of the Court are implemented at the domestic level.1 4. Considering Article 67 of the American Convention, which stipulates that the judgment of the Court shall be final and shall not be subject to appeal, such judgment shall be fully and promptly complied with by the State. 5. The obligation to comply with the rulings of the Court corresponds to a basic principle of law on the international responsibility of the State, supported by international jurisprudence, according to which the States must comply with their international conventional obligations in good faith (pacta sunt servanda) and, as previously held by the Court and pursuant to Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969, States cannot, for domestic order reasons, avoid the international responsibility which has already been established.2 The conventional obligations of the States Parties bind all powers and organs of the State.3 1 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 131; Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 28, 2010, Considering three; and Case of Vargas Areco v. Paraguay. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 20, 2010, Considering three. 2 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; Case of Baena Ricardo et al. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment, supra note 1, Considering five; and Case of Vargas Areco, supra note 1, Considering four.