2 d) To administer the criminal trials that are currently ongoing and all those that may arise in the future in order to determine the identity of those responsible for the facts of the case (Operative Paragraph Nine of the Judgment); e) To award a grant for university studies (Operative Paragraph Eleven of the Judgment); f) To provide adequate and specialized medical, psychiatric, and psychological treatment to the family members of the victim (Operative Paragraph Twelve of the Judgment); and, g) To publish the Judgment in the Official Gazette (Operative Paragraph Thirteen of the Judgment). 4. The private hearing on Monitoring Compliance with the Judgment held on May 22, 2010 at the Court’s seat. 5. The State’s briefs of June 9, August 17, and October 22, 2010, whereby it reported on its steps taken in fulfillment of the Judgment. 6. The representatives’ briefs of July 12, August 27, and September 24, 2010, whereby they presented their observations on monitoring compliance with the Judgment. 7. The Inter-American Commission’s briefs of September 24 and November 5, 2010, whereby it presented its observations on monitoring compliance with the Judgment. CONSIDERING: 1. Monitoring compliance with its decisions is a power inherent to the judicial functions of the Court 2. Colombia has been a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter the “American Convention” or the “Convention”) since July 31, 1973, and recognized the binding character of the Court’s jurisdiction on June 21, 1985. 3. Pursuant to Article 67 of the American Convention, the States must promptly and fully comply with the judgments of the Court. Likewise, in accordance with Article 68(1) of the 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.” Thus, the States must ensure domestic implementation of the Tribunal’s orders and judgments.2 4. The obligation to comply with the rulings of the Court conforms to a basic principle of law, backed by international jurisprudence, on the international responsibility of States. According to this principle, States are required to fulfill their international treaty obligations in good faith (pacta sunt servanda) and, as previously held by the Court and as set forth in Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969, States cannot invoke their domestic laws in order to avoid pre-existing international responsibility.3 Thus, the treaty 2 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. . Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 60; Case of Valle Jaramillo v. Colombia. Monitoring compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of December 21, 2010, Considering Clause three, and Case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia. Monitoring compliance with Judgment. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of December 22, 2010, Considering Clause three and four. 3 Cf. International responsibility for the issuance and application of laws that violate the Convention (Art. 1 and 2 of the American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion AO-14/94 of December 9, 1994. Series A No. 14, para. 35; Case of Valle Jaramillo v. Colombia, supra note 2, Considering Clause four, and Case of Castro Castro Prison v. Peru. Monitoring compliance with