2 7. The brief of January 28, 2010, in which the representatives clarified their proposal concerning publication of the judgment 8. The brief of February 1, 2010, in which the Commission presented its observations on the State’s inquiry and on the representatives’ briefs (supra having seen paragraphs 2, 4 and 7). 9. The brief of February 5, 2010, in which the State presented its observations on the said briefs of the representatives (supra having seen paragraphs 4 and 7). CONSIDERING THAT: 1. One of the inherent attributes of the jurisdictional functions of the Court is to monitor compliance with its decisions. 2. Brazil has been a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the American Convention” or “the Convention”) since September 25, 1992, and, pursuant to its Article 62, accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court on December 10, 1998. 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, the State must ensure implementation at the national level of the Court’s decisions in its judgments.1 4. In view of the final and non-appealable nature of the judgments of the Court, as established in Article 67 of the American Convention, the State must comply with them fully and promptly. 5. The obligation to comply with the decisions in the Court’s judgments corresponds to a basic principle of the law on 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 treaty.2 The treaty obligations of the States Parties are binding for all the powers and organs of the State.3 6. The States Parties to the Convention must ensure compliance with its provisions and their inherent effects (effet utile) within their respective domestic legal systems. 1 Cf. Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 131; Cesti Hurtado v. Peru. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights de February 4, 2010, third considering paragraph, and El Amparo v. Venezuela. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights de February 4, 2010, third considering paragraph. 2 Cf. International Responsibility for the Promulgation and Enforcement of Laws in Violation of the Convention (Arts. 1 and 2 of the American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-14/94 of December 9, 1994. Series A No. 14, para. 35; Cesti Hurtado v. Peru, supra note 1, fifth considering paragraph, and El Amparo v. Venezuela, supra note 1, fifth considering paragraph. 3 Cf. Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of November 17, 1999. Series C No. 59, third considering paragraph; El Amparo v. Venezuela, supra note 1, fifth considering paragraph, and Serrano Cruz Sisters v. El Salvador. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 3, 2010, fifth considering paragraph.