7. The briefs dated June 28 and July 31, 2013, by which the representatives and the Commission, respectively, referred to the lack of compliance with the Judgment and the absence of the State in the process of monitoring compliance as a whole. 8. The note of the Secretariat dated July 3, 2013, in which the Plenary of the Court informed Nicaragua that its failure to appear at the private hearing held on May 28, 2013 constitutes a breach of its duty to inform the Court on its compliance with the Judgment, and granted the State until July 22, 2013 to submit its observations regarding the information provided by the Commission and by the representatives during the aforementioned hearing, and on the brief of the representatives of June 28, 2013 (supra Having Seen clause 7). The State did not submit any observations. Moreover, the note of the Secretariat of the Court of August 1, 2013, in which the State was given a new deadline of August 9, 2013 for the submission of its observations on the above-mentioned information. At the date of issuance of the present Order, such observations have not been received by the Court. CONSIDERING THAT: 1. One of the inherent attributes of the jurisdictional functions of the Court is to monitor compliance with its decisions. 2. Nicaragua has been a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights since September 25, 1979, and, pursuant to Article 62 of the Convention, it recognized the jurisdiction of the Court on February 12, 1991. 3. In conformity with the provisions of Article 67 of the American Convention, the State must promptly comply with the judgments of the Court in their entirety. Moreover, 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.” To this end, the States must ensure the implementation at the domestic level of the Court’s decisions in its judgments. 2 The foregoing obligation includes the duty of the State to report to the Court on the measures adopted to comply with the rulings of the Court. The prompt implementation of the State’s obligation to report to the Court on how each aspect ordered by the Court is being fulfilled is essential in order to assess the status of compliance with the Judgment as a whole. 3 4. The obligation to comply with the Tribunal's rulings conforms to a basic principle of international law, supported by international jurisprudence, under which States must abide by their international treaty obligations in good faith (pacta sunt servanda) and, as set forth by this Court and in Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969, States cannot, for domestic reasons, neglect their pre-established international Rivera (YATAMA), Norwin Solano (CENIDH), Marcia Aguiluz, Luis Carlos Buob, Carlos Zazueta, Sergio Pacheco and Luciana Peri (CEJIL). The State did not establish a delegation. 2 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. V. Panamá. Jurisdiction. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 60, and Case of Abrill Alosilla et al. V. Perú. Monitoring of Compliance of Judgment. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of May 22, 2013, Considering clause three. 3 Cf. Case of Five Pensioners V. Perú. Monitoring of Compliance of Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 17, 2004, Considering clause 4, and Case of Abrill Alosilla et al. V. Perú. Monitoring of Compliance of Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 22, 2013, Considering clause 6. 3