3 4. The briefs of February 3, April 15, May 17 and December 16, 2010, and their annexes, whereby the Republic of Peru (hereinafter “the State” or “Peru”) reported on progress in compliance with the Judgment. 5. The briefs of March 2, July 15, September 24, 2010, and January 31, 2011, and their annexes, whereby the representatives of the victims (hereinafter “the representatives”) submitted their comments on the State’s reports. 6. The briefs of April 1, June 28, 2010, and February 8, 2011, whereby the InterAmerican Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American Commission” or “the Commission”) submitted its observations on the State’s reports and on the observations of the representatives. 7. The notes of the Secretariat of the Court of April 22, May 19, June 9, July 8, October 7 and December 20, 2010, and January 28 and February 2, 2011, among others, whereby the State requested proof of payment of compensation and observations made to the parties on the information submitted to the Court. CONSIDERING: 1. Monitoring compliance with its decisions is an inherent power to the jurisdictional functions of the Court. 2. Peru is a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter "the American Convention") since July 28, 1978 and acknowledged the jurisdiction of the Court on January 21, 1981. 3. Furthermore, Article 68(1) of the American Convention stipulates that "[t]he State Parties to the Convention undertake to comply with the decision of the Court in any case to which they are parties." To this end, States should ensure the domestic implementation of provisions set forth in the Court's rulings.1 4. In virtue of the definitive and non-appealable nature of the Court's Judgments, according to the provisions of Article 67 of the American Convention, the State should fully comply with such Judgments. 5. The obligation to comply with the Tribunal's rulings conforms to a basic principle of international responsibility of the State, supported by international jurisprudence, under which States must abide by their international treaty obligations in good faith (pacta sunt servanda) and, as set forth by this Court and in Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969, States cannot, for domestic reasons, 1 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 131; Case of Valle Jaramillo v. Colombia. Monitoring compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of December 21, 2010, Considering Clause three, and Case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of December 22, 2010, Considering Clause three.