3 Considering: 1. That it is an inherent power of the Court to monitor compliance with its orders. 2. That Venezuela has been a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter the “American Convention” or “the Convention”) since August 9, 1977 and acknowledged the contentious competence of the Court on June 24, 1981. 3. That Article 68(1) of the American Convention sets forth 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 that end, the State shall ensure the implementation of the Court’s decisions at domestic level.2 4. That in view that the Court’s judgments are final and not subject to appeal, pursuant to Article 67 of the American Convention, such judgments shall be promptly and fully complied with by the State within the term established to that end. 5. That the obligation to comply with the Court’s judgments is a basic principle of the international liabilities of the State, supported by international jurisprudence whereby the State shall abide by its obligations under international conventions in good faith (pacta sunt servanda) and, as pointed out by this Court already and according to Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969, the States shall not, due to their internal legislation, stop complying with the international liabilities already established. The obligations of the States Parties under the Convention are binding for all the powers and bodies of the State.3 6. That the States Parties to the Convention shall ensure compliance with the provisions in the Convention and their effect (effet utile) on their own domestic legislations. This principle is applied not only in relation to the substantive provisions of human rights treaties (i.e. those including provisions on protected rights), but also in relation to procedural rules, such as compliance with the Court’s judgments. These obligations shall be construed and applied so that the guarantee protected is truly practical and effective, taking into account the special nature of human rights treaties.4 7. That the States Parties to the Convention acknowledging the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court shall comply with the obligations established by the Court. Such obligation includes the State’s duty to inform the Court on any measures adopted for compliance with the Court’s orders. Timely compliance with the state’s obligation to report to the Court on compliance with each of the issues in the Court’s orders is fundamental to assess the status of compliance with the Judgment as a whole.5 2 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. V. Panama. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. C Series No. 104, para. 131; Case of Caracazo V. Venezuela. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of September 23, 2009, considering clause 3, and Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz V. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 21, 2009, considering clause 3. 3 Cf. International Responsibility for the Promulgation and Enforcement of Laws in Violation of the Convention (Arts. 1 and 2 of the American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory opinion OC-14/94 of December 9, 1994. A Series No. 14, para. 35; Case of Caracazo, supra note 2, considering clause 5, and Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz, supra note 2, considering clause 4. 4 Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein V. Peru. Competence. Judgment of September 24, 1999. C Series No. 54, para. 37; Case of Caracazo, supra note 2, considering clause 6, and Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz, supra note 2, considering clause 6. 5 Cf. Case of Barrios Altos V. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court