15. […] pay the amounts established in paragraph 247 [t]hereof, as compensation for pecuniary damage […]. 16. […] pay the amounts established in paragraphs 251, 253 and 259 [t]hereof, as compensation for non-pecuniary damage, and reimbursement of costs and expenses […]. 17. Within one year of notification of the judgment, and in order to monitor the judgment, the State must submit a report to the Court on the measures it has adopted […]. 2. The reports of the Republic of Colombia (hereinafter, "Colombia" or the "State") submitted on July 26, 2010; June 22 and August 24, 2011, by means of which it informed on the progress made in the compliance with the Judgment. 3. The briefs of the victims’ representatives (hereinafter, the “representatives”) of July 16, 2010 and September 6, 2011, by means of which they presented the observations to the State’s reports and to the compliance with the Judgment. 4. The brief of August 18, 2011, whereby the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter, the “Commission” or the "Inter-American Commission") submitted its observations to the reports of the State. CONSIDERING THAT: 1. It is an inherent power of the judicial functions of the Court to monitor compliance with its decisions. 2. Colombia has been a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter, the “American Convention” or the "Convention”) since July 31, 1973, and that it accepted the binding jurisdiction of the Court on June 21, 1985. 3. Article 68 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”. Therefore, States must ensure that the rulings set out in the decisions of the Court are implemented at the domestic level1. 4. The obligation to comply with the rulings of the Tribunal conforms to a basic principle of the law on the international responsibility of States, under which States are required to fulfill their international treaty obligations in good faith (pacta sunt servanda) and, as previously held by the Court and provided for in Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969, States cannot invoke their municipal laws to escape from their pre-established international responsibilities 2. The treaty obligations of States Parties are binding on all State powers and organs3. 1 See Case of Baena Ricardo et al. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para 60; Case of the Girls Yean and Bosico V. Dominican Republican. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment Order of the Court of August 10, 2011, Considering clause four. 2 See 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 December 9, 1994, Series A Nº. 14, para. 35; case of Tibi V. Ecuador. Monitoring compliance with Judgment. Order of the Court of March 3, 2011; considering clause four. Case of the Girls Yean and Bosico V. Dominican Republic, supra note 1, considering clause five. 3 See Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al V. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Court of November 17, 1999; considering clause three. Case of the Girls Yean and Bosico V. Dominican Republic, supra note 1, considering clause five. 2