4 5. The notes1 of the Court’s Secretariat (hereinafter, the “Secretariat”) of July 11 and September 1, 2006, January 24, February 5, March 6, March 11, April 18 and June 25, 2007, January 22, February 22, March 14, May 19 and June 24, 2008 by which, following the instructions of the President of the Court at that moment and the current President, the State was requested to forward the State's report in order to inform the Court, in detail, on the measures adopted to comply with the pending operative paragraphs of the Judgment delivered in the instant case (supra Having Seen 1). In the Order of February 7, 2006, the Court requested the State the submission of the report of May 24, 2006. However, on several occasions, the term for its submission was extended but the last term granted for presentation expired on March 10, 2008 and the State has not still submitted the report up to the moment. CONSIDERING: 1. It is an inherent power of the judicial functions of the Court to monitor compliance with its decisions. 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 the obligation to comply with the decisions of the Court’s judgments conforms to a basic principle of the international responsibility of the State, supported by international case law, according to which a State must comply with its international treaty obligations in good faith (pacta sunt servanda).2 4. That the States Parties to the Convention must ensure compliance with its provisions and their inherent effects (effet utile) within their respective domestic legal systems. This principle applies not only in connection with the substantive provisions 1 Cf.. Note IACHR-11.760/399 of the Secretariat of July 11, 2006 (record of Monitoring Compliance with Judgment, Volume III, page 1144); note IACHR -11.760/403 of the Secretariat of September 1, 2006 (record of Monitoring Compliance with Judgment, Volume III, page 1155); note IACHR-11.760/406 of the Secretariat of January 24, 2007 (record of Monitoring Compliance with Judgment, Volume III, page 1173); note IACHR-11.760/412 of the Secretariat of February 5, 2007 (record of Monitoring Compliance with Judgment, Volume III, page 1184); note IACHR-11.760/418 of the Secretariat of March 6, 2007 (record of Monitoring Compliance with Judgment, Volume III, page 1197); note IACHR-11.760/421 of the Secretariat of March 27, 2007 (record of Monitoring Compliance with Judgment, Volume III, page 1200); note IACHR11.760/424 of the Secretariat of April 18, 2007 (record of Monitoring Compliance with Judgment, Volume III, page 1205); note IACHR-11.760/427 of the Secretariat of June 25, 2007 (record of Monitoring Compliance with the Judgment, Volume III, page 1210); note IACHR-11.760/437 of the Secretariat of January 22, 2008 (record of Monitoring Compliance with the Judgment, Volume III, page 1247); note IACHR-11.760/442 of the Secretariat of February 22, 2008 (record of Monitoring Compliance with the Judgment, Volume IV, page 1254); note IACHR-11.760/449 of the Secretariat of March 14, 2008 (record of Monitoring Compliance with the Judgment, Volume IV, page 1264); note IACHR -11.760/457 of the Secretariat of May 19, 2008 (record of Monitoring Compliance with the Judgment, Volume IV, page 1275); and note IACHR-11.760/461 of the Secretariat of June 24 , 2008 (record of Monitoring Compliance with the Judgment, Volume IV, page 1280). 2 Cf. International Responsibility for the Promulgation and Enforcement of Laws in Violation of the Convention (articles 1 and 2 American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-14/94 of September 9, 1994, para. 35; Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community v. Nicaragua. Monitoring Compliance with the Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 7, 2008; Considering Clause five; Case of Raxcacó Reyes v. Guatemala. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 9, 2008, Considering Clause four.