5. The communication of June 9, 2011, in which the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Commission” or “the InterAmerican Commission”) presented its observations to the report forwarded by the State (supra Having Seen paragraph 3). 6. The notes of the Secretariat of the Court of March 12 and May 24, 2012, reminding the State that, according to the Operative Paragraph 6 of the Order of November 22, 2010 (supra Having Seen paragraph 2), the State must submit a report on compliance with the measures of reparation that are still pending, and that the State’s last report had been presented on April 6, 2011. Consequently, on the instructions of the President of the Court, the State was requested to submit a new report on the measures adopted to comply with the pending reparations as soon as possible, in accordance with said Order. CONSIDERING THAT: 1. It is an inherent attribute of the jurisdictional functions of the Court to monitor compliance with its decisions. 2. Argentina has been a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the American Convention” or “the Convention”) since September 5, 1984, and recognized the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on that date. On March 31, 1989, Argentina ratified the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture (hereinafter “the Convention against Torture” or “the ICPPT”). 3. According to the provisions of Article 67 of the American Convention, the State must comply fully and promptly with the judgments of the Court. In addition, 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 State must ensure implementation at the domestic level of the Court’s decisions in its judgments.1 4. The obligation to comply with the decisions in the Court’s judgments corresponds to a basic principle of international law, supported by international case law, according to which States must comply with their international treaty obligations in good faith (pacta sunt servanda) and, as this Court has already 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 abide by a treaty. The treaty obligations of the States Parties are binding for all the powers and organs of the State. 2 5. 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 to the substantive provisions of human rights treaties (i.e. those addressing protected rights), but also to procedural provisions, such as those referring to compliance with the Court’s decisions. These obligations should be interpreted and applied so that the protected guarantee is 1 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. Jurisdiction. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 60; Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 27, 2012, Considering paragraph 2. 2 Cf. International Responsibility for the Promulgation and Enforcement of Laws in Violation of the Convention (Arts. 1 and 2 American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-14/94 of December 9, 1994. Series A No. 14, para. 35, and Case of Caballero Delgado and Santana v. Colombia. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 27 2012, Considering paragraph 5. 2