4 CONSIDERING 1. That monitoring compliance with its decisions is a power inherent in the judicial functions of the Court. 2. That Peru has been a State Party to the American Convention since July 28, 1978, and that it accepted the binding jurisdiction of the Court on January 21, 1981. 3. That, pursuant to Article 68(1) of the American Convention, “[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 1 implementation of the Court’s rulings at the domestic level. 4. That, given the final and not-subject-to-appeal nature of the Court’s judgments, as established in Article 67 of the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” or “the American Convention”), said judgments are to be promptly and fully complied with by the State. 5. That the obligation to comply with the judgments of the Court conforms to a basic principle of the law of the international responsibility of States, as supported by international case law, under which States are required to comply with their international treaty obligations in good faith (pacta sunt servanda) and, as previously held by the Court and provided for in Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969, States cannot invoke their municipal laws to escape their preestablished international responsibility.2 The treaty obligations of States Parties are binding on all State powers and organs. 6. That the States Parties to the American Convention are required to guarantee compliance with the provisions thereof and secure their effects (effet utile) at the domestic law level. This principle applies not only in connection with the substantive provisions of human rights treaties, but also in connection with procedural rules, such as the ones concerning compliance with the decisions of the Court. Such obligations are to be interpreted and enforced in a manner such that the protected guarantee is truly practical and effective, considering the special nature of human rights treaties.3 1 Cf. Case of the Five Pensioners. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 4, 2006, Considering clause No. 3; Case of Bámaca-Velásquez. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 4, 2006, Considering clause No. 3; Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute.” Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 4, 2006, Considering clause No. 3. Cf. Case of the Five Pensioners. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of July 4, 2006, Considering clause No. 7; Case of Bámaca-Velásquez. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 4, 2006, Considering clause No. 5; Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute.” Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 4, 2006, Considering clause No. 5. 2 3 Cf. Case of the Five Pensioners. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of July 4, 2006, Considering clause No. 8; Case of Bámaca-Velásquez. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 4, 2006, Considering clause No. 6; Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute.” Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 4, 2006, Considering clause No. 6.