observations on the information presented by Chile regarding the aspects of the judgment pending compliance. 5. The briefs of June 3, 2010, and May 11, 2011, in which the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American Commission” or “the Commission”) submitted its observations on the information presented by the State and the observations of the representatives. CONSIDERING THAT: 1. One of the inherent attributes of the jurisdictional functions of the Court is to monitor compliance with its decisions. 2. Chile has been a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the American Convention” or “the Convention”) since August 21, 1990, and accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court the same day. 3. In accordance with the provisions of Article 67 of the American Convention, the State must comply fully and promptly with the Court's judgments. Furthermore, Article 68(1) of the American Convention stipulates that “ t he State Parties to the Convention undertake to comply with the Court's decisions in any case to which they are parties.” To this end, States must ensure the domestic implementation of the provisions of the Court's decisions.1 4. The obligation to comply with the Court's rulings conforms to a basic principle of international law, supported by international jurisprudence, in accordance with which States must abide by their international treaty obligations in good faith (pacta sunt servanda) and, as this Court has indicated and as established in Article 27 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty.2 The treaty obligations of State Parties are binding on all the powers and organs of the State.3 5. The States Parties to the Convention must ensure compliance with its provisions and their inherent effects (effet utile) within their respective laws. This principle applies not only with regard to the substantive provisions of human rights treaties (that is, those that include provisions on the protected rights), but also with regard to procedural norms, such as those concerning compliance with the Court’s decisions. These obligations must be 1 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 60; Case of Tiu Tojín v. Guatemala. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 16, 2011, third considering paragraph, and Case of Castillo Páez v. Peru. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 19, 2011, third considering paragraph. 2 Cf. International Responsibility for the Promulgation and Enforcement of Laws in Violation of the Convention (Art. 1 and 2 of the American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-14/94 of December 9, 1994. Series A No. 14, para. 35; Case of Castillo Páez v. Peru, supra note 1, fourth considering paragraph, and Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 19, 2011, fifth considering paragraph. 3 Cf. Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of November 17, 1999, third considering paragraph; Case of Castillo Páez v. Peru, supra note 1, fourth considering paragraph, and Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico, supra note 2, fifth considering paragraph. 2