6 Terrorism Chamber) on June 20, 2001, amounting to one hundred thousand Nuevos Soles, the State has complied with the aforementioned obligation; e) in connection with the obligation to adopt the measures necessary for having detention conditions in the Yanamayo penal facility conform to international standards, the State should provide additional information in order to report which are the specific measures have been carried out for the purpose of improving the conditions within the imprisonment facility and in what situation is the medical consultation office taking care of the inmates to be found, as well as on whether they have the possibility of accessing medical care of their own as an alternative to the one provided by the physician at the imprisonment facility; and f) in connection with the obligation to pay Ms. Rhoda Berenson and Mr. Mark Berenson the amount fixed for legal costs and expenses, including default interest accrued to date, the State has adopted measures aimed at complying with such payment, but verification of whether the aforesaid payment included the appropriate amount for default interest is still pending. CONSIDERING: 1. That it is an inherent attribute of the jurisdictional functions of the Court to monitor compliance with its decisions. 2. That Peru has been a State Party to the American Convention since July 28, 1978, and accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court on January 21, 1981. 3. That on November 25, 2004 the Court handed down the Judgment on the merits, reparations and legal costs in the instant case (supra Having Seen clause No. 1). 4. 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 States must ensure the implementation of the decisions in the Court’s judgments at the domestic level.1 5. That in view of the definitive and unappealable nature of the Judgments of the Court, pursuant to Article 67 of the American Convention, the State must comply with them promptly and completely. 6. 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 fulfill 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, for reasons of an internal nature, fail to 1 Cf. Case of the “Five Pensioners”. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of July 4, 2006, Considering clause No. 3; Case of Bámaca-Velásquez. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 4, 2006, Considering clause No. 3; and Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute”. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 4, 2006, Considering clause No. 3.