3 And decide[d]: 1. To require the State to adopt all necessary measures to comply promptly with the aspects pending compliance ordered by the Court in the Judgment […], pursuant to the provisions of Article 68(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights. […] 4. The reports submitted by the Republic of Peru (hereinafter “the State” or “Peru”) on June 12, July 31 and December 14, 2007, and January 11, 2008, providing information on the measures adopted to comply with the pending aspects of the Judgment (supra Having seen paragraphs 1, 2 and 3). 5. The communications presented by the representatives of the victims and their next of kin (hereinafter “the representatives”) on July 11 and November 12, 2007, and January 24 and April 9, 2008, in which they submitted observations on the State’s reports (supra Having seen paragraph 4). 6. The communications presented by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Commission” or “the Inter-American Commission”) on August 8 and November 21, 2007, and January 31, 2008, in which it submitted observations on the reports of the State and on the observations of the representatives (supra Having seen paragraphs 4 and 5). CONSIDERING: 1. That one of the inherent attributes of the jurisdictional functions of the Court is to monitor compliance with its decisions. 2. That Peru has been a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the American Convention” or “the Convention”) since July 28, 1978, and accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court on January 21, 1981. 3. That 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 national level of the Court’s decisions in its judgments.1 4. That, in view of the final and unappealable nature of the judgments of the Court, as established in Article 67 of the American Convention, they should be complied with fully and promptly by the State. 5. That the obligation to comply with the decisions in the Court’s judgments corresponds to a basic principle of the law of the international responsibility of the State, supported by international case law, according to which, a State must comply with its 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 perform a 1 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No 140, para. 131; Case of Raxcacó Reyes v. Guatemala. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of March 28, 2008, third considering paragraph, and Fermín Ramírez v. Guatemala. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of March 28, 2008, third considering paragraph.