3 10. The note from the Secretariat of the Court of July 20, 2010, through which it informed Mr. Fernández Saré that it would process his request for provisional measures once the Tribunal had received the original brief mentioned or, failing that, a copy signed by all the applicants. The original brief of the request for provisional measures and its annexes were received on November 2, 2010. Subsequently, and following the instructions of the President of the Tribunal, that brief was forwarded to the Commission, the State, and the common interveners for them to provide their comments on it. 11. The briefs of November 11 and 12, 2010, through which the State, on one hand, and the common interveners and the Inter-American Commission, on the other, submitted their comments on the request for provisional measures (supra Having Seen 11). Nevertheless, only the State made specific reference to the request for provisional measures, while the Commission and the common interveners referred to compliance with the Judgment. CONSIDERING THAT: A Monitoring Compliance with Judgment 1. Monitoring compliance with its rulings is an inherent power of the Court’s judicial functions. 2. Peru has been a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the American Convention”) since July 28, 1978, and accepted the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on January 21, 1981. 3. Article 68(1) of the American Convention establishes that, “The States Party to the Convention undertake to comply with the judgment of the Court in any case to which they are parties”. To that end, States must ensure internal implementation of the Court’s orders.4 4. By virtue of the final and unappealable nature of the judgments of the Court as established in Article 67 of the American Convention, the State must comply with them immediately and fully within the time period established to do so. 5. The obligation to comply with Court judgments is based on a basic principle of law on international State responsibility, upheld by international case law, according to which States are required to fulfill their international treaty obligations in good faith (pacta sunt servanda) and, as the Court has previously indicated and pursuant to Article 27 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, they may not, for domestic reasons, fail to accept the international responsibility that has been established. The obligations of State Parties under the Convention are binding upon all State authorities and agencies. 5 6. The States Parties to the Convention shall guarantee compliance with the provisions of the Convention and its effects (effet utile) within the scope of their respective domestic 4 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. Jurisdiction. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 60; Case of Tristán Donoso v. Panama. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 1, 2010, Considering 3, and Case of De La Cruz Flores v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 1, 2010, Considering three. 5 Cf. International Responsibility for the promulgation and enforcement of laws in violation of the Convention (arts. 1 and 2 of the American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-14/94 of December 9, 1994. Series A No. 14, para. 35; Case of Tristán Donoso v. Panama. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. supra footnote 5, Considering 5, and Case of De la Cruz Flores v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment, supra footnote 5, Considering 5.