[…] 3. The briefs of March 21 and June 20, 2011, and of February 27 and June 6, 2012, in which the Republic of Panama (hereinafter, the "State" or "Panama") forwarded information concerning compliance with the Judgment. 4. The brief of April 19, 2012, in which the Center for Justice and International Law (hereinafter, also “CEJIL”) submitted its observations to the information presented by the State. 5. The briefs of January 16, April 14 and May 16, 2012, in which the Organización de Trabajadores Víctimas de la Ley 25 de 1990 de la República de Panamá (hereinafter “Organización de Trabajadores Víctimas”) presented its observations to the information provided by the State. 6. The communications of May 15 and June 15 2012, in which the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter, the “Commission” or the "Inter-American Commission") submitted its observations to the reports of the State and the observations presented by the representatives. CONSIDERING THAT: 1. It is an inherent attribute of the judicial functions of the Court to monitor compliance with its decisions. 2. Panama has been a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter, the “American Convention” or the “Convention”) since June 22, 1978, and accepted the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on May 9, 1990. 3. 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, States should ensure the domestic implementation of the provisions set forth in the Court’s rulings.1 4. Pursuant to Article 67 of the American Convention, which stipulates that the judgments of the Court shall be final and not subject to appeal, States must comply fully and promptly with these. 5. The obligation to comply with the Court’s rulings conforms to a basic principle of law on the international responsibility of States, supported by international jurisprudence, according to which States must abide by their 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, States cannot, for domestic reasons, neglect their pre-established international 1 See Case of Baena Ricardo et al v. Panama. Jurisdiction. Judgment of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para . 131, and Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Judgment of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 27, 2012, Considering paragraph 2. 2