2 5. The briefs submitted by the representatives on December 8, 2003, March 28, April 29, and November 29, 2005, and September 20, 2006. 6. The briefs submitted by the Commission on December 8, 2003, April 4, 2005, January 27 and September 18, 2006. 7. The communications delivered by the Secretariat of the Court (hereinafter, the “Secretariat”) on December 20, 2007, January 24, August 7, October 16 and November 18, 2008, whereby it requested the State to submit the State’s report the submission deadline of which was December 10, 2007, and whereby it should inform the Court in detail on the measures adopted in furtherance of compliance with the unfulfilled operative paragraphs of the Judgment delivered in the instant case (supra Having Seen 3). CONSIDERING: 1. That monitoring compliance with its decisions in an inherent jurisdictional power of the Court. 2. That Peru is a State Party to the Convention since July 28, 1978, and accepted the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on January 21, 1981. 3. That the obligation to comply with the judgments of the Court conforms to a basic principle of law of the international responsibility of States, as supported by the international case law, under which States are required to comply with their international treaty obligations in good faith (pacta sunct servanda).1 4. That the States Parties to the Convention are required to guarantee compliance with the provisions thereof and their effects (effet utile) at the domestic level. This principle is applicable not only with regard to the substantive provisions of human rights treaties (i.e. those dealing with protected rights) but also with regard to procedural rules, such as those concerning compliance with the decisions of the Court. These obligations are to be interpreted and enforced in a manner such that the protected guarantee is truly practical and effective, bearing in mind the special nature of human rights treaties.2 5. That those States Parties to the American Convention that have accepted the binding jurisdiction of the Court are under a duty to fulfill the obligations set by the Tribunal. This obligation includes the State’s duty to report on the measures adopted 1 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, para. 35; Case of Palamara-Iribarne v. Chile. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Court of December 15, 2008, Considering clause No. 5; and Case of Bulacio v. Argentina. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of November 26, 2008, Considering clause No. 5. 2 Cf. Case of Ivcher-Bronstein v. Peru. Competence. Judgment of September 24, 1999. Series C No. 54, para. 37; Case of Palamara-Iribarne, supra note 1, Considering clause No. 6; and Case of Bulacio, supra note 1, Considering clause No. 6.

Select target paragraph3