4 was determined that the State would have to present its written report, together with relevant information and documentation, to respond to the questions made and to elaborate upon the aspects discussed during the hearing, by February 10, 2009 In turn, the representatives and the Commission would have to present their respective comments and information required within a term of ten days. 13. The brief of February 23, 2009 by which the State submitted, after the extension granted, its third report, according to what was requested in the hearing (supra Having Seen clause 12). 14. The briefs of April 17 and May 26, 2009 by means of which the representatives and the Commission submitted, respectively, once an extension of time was granted and upon the expiration of the term established to that effect, their comments to the third state's report (supra Having Seen clauses 12 and 13). Considering: 1. It is an inherent power of the judicial functions of the Court to monitor compliance with its decisions. 2. That Colombia has been a State Party to the American Convention since July 31, 1973, and that it accepted the binding jurisdiction of the Court on June 21, 1985. 3. That 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 4. 4. That, in consideration of section 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. That the obligation to comply with the rulings of the Tribunal conforms to a basic principle of the law on the international responsibility of States, under which States are required to fulfill 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 from their pre-established international responsibility. The treaty obligations of States Parties are binding on all State powers and organs.5 as to the meeting to be held in the Colombian Embassy, in which several agreements would be entered into, and these agreements would be forwarded to the Court and the opinion of the Commission on those agreements. Regarding the conditions for the return of the victims of Mapiripán and, if possible, on their relocation, what are the conditions that need to be created in order for them to return or relocate? Furthermore, they should refer to the possibility of an alternative design in case the victims cannot return. As to Messrs. Omar Patiño Vaca and Eliécer Martínez Vaca, who were declared victims by the Court, which should be the appropriate Tribunal's response as to the reconsideration of this aspect in this procedural stage where compliance with the judgment is being monitored? 4 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para 60; Case of Gómez Palomino V Perú, Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Court of July 1, 2009, considering clause 3; and Case of the Dismissed Congressional Employees (Aguado Alfaro et al.) V. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with the Judgment. Order of the Court’s President of June 8, 2009; considering clause 3. 5 Cf. International Responsibility for the Promulgation and Enforcement of Laws in Violation of the Convention (articles 1and 2 American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-14/94 of