3 informed the parties that it understood that the representatives exercised representation of Mr. Chaparro Álvarez only, unless otherwise indicated. 7. The Secretariat’s note of November 17, 2009, whereby, following the President’s instructions, it requested the State to submit, as of January 28, 2010, at the latest, a new report on the advances regarding compliance with the Judgment. 8. The communication of February 3, 2010, whereby the State requested an extension for the presentation of its report. 9. The Secretariat’s note of February 8, 2010, whereby it granted the extension requested by the State until March 8, 2010. However, this term elapsed and the report was not submitted to the Court. 10. The communication of March 2, 2010, whereby Mr. Lapo Íñiguez referred to compliance with the Judgment in relation to himself. 11. The communication of May 17, 2010, whereby Mr. Chaparro Álvarez submitted his observations on compliance with operative paragraph thirteen of the Judgment. CONSIDERING THAT: 1. It is an inherent power of the judicial functions of the Court to monitor compliance with its decisions. 2. Ecuador has been a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter, the “Convention” or the “American Convention”) since December 28, 1977, and that it recognized the Court’s obligatory jurisdiction on July 24, 1984. 3. 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.” For such purposes, States are required to ensure the implementation of the Court’s rulings at the domestic level.1 4. Article 67 of the American Convention, which stipulates that the judgment of the Court shall be final and shall not be subject to appeal, such judgments shall be fully and promptly complied with by the State. 5. The obligation to comply with the rulings of the Court corresponds to a basic principle of law on the international responsibility of the State, supported by international jurisprudence, according to which the States must comply with their international conventional obligations in good faith (pacta sunt servanda) and, as previously held by the Court and pursuant to Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969, States cannot, for domestic order reasons, avoid the international responsibility which has already been established.2 The conventional obligations of the States Parties are binding on 1 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al v. Panama. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 131; Case of the Saramaka people v. Suriname. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the President of the Court of April 20, 2010, Considering three, and Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panama. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the President of the Court of April 20, 2010, Considering three. 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; Case of the Saramaka People v. Suriname, supra note 1, considering five, and Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panama, supra note 1, considering four.