83 […] the term "recommendations" used by the American Convention should be interpreted to conform to its ordinary meaning, in accordance with Article 31(1) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. For that reason, a recommendation does not have the character of an obligatory judicial decision for which the failure to comply would generate State responsibility. 121 186. Nevertheless, this Court has also held that: […] in accordance with the principle of good faith, embodied in the aforesaid Article 31(1) of the Vienna Convention, if a State signs and ratifies an international treaty, especially one concerning human rights, such as the American Convention, it has the obligation to make every effort to apply with the recommendations of a protection organ such as the Inter-American Commission, which is, indeed, one of the principal organs of the Organization of American States, whose function is “to promote the observance and defense of human rights” in the hemisphere (OAS Charter, Articles 52 and 111). Likewise, Article 33 of the American Convention states that the Inter-American Commission is, as the Court, competent "with respect to matters relating to the fulfillment of the commitments made by the State Parties" which means that by ratifying said Convention, States Parties engage themselves to apply the recommendations made by the Commission in its reports. 122 187. This Court considers that, in keeping with its jurisprudence constante, once a case is submitted to the Court, it is up to the Court to determine whether or not the State violated substantive precepts of Convention; if so, it must then determine the consequences of those violations. If a case is not submitted to the Court, however, it is not up to the Court to determine the international responsibilities that the State has incurred arising from State’s procedural conduct in the case before the Commission; in fact, a finding of responsibility is a necessary antecedent before a case can be submitted to the Court. 123 XIII REPARATIONS (Application of Article 63(1) of the Convention) Pleadings of the Commission 188. The Commission asserted that the victims and their representatives were entitled to reparations and costs. The Commission’s pleadings with regard to Article 63(1) of the Convention are summarized below: a) the beneficiaries of the reparations ordered by the Court as a result of the violations found are: Mauricio Herrera Ulloa and Fernán Vargas Rohrmoser; b) the measures to guarantee enjoyment of the violated right and the reparations required to bring the State into compliance with its international responsibility include, inter alia, the following: restitution, measures of reparation and satisfaction and the payment of expenses and legal fees 121 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al., supra note 120, para. 191; Case of Loayza-Tamayo. Judgment of September 17, 1997. Series C No. 33, para. 79; and Case of Genie-Lacayo. Judgment of January 29, 1997. Series C No. 30, para. 93. 122 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al., supra note 120, para. 192; and Case of Loayza-Tamayo, supra note 121, paragraphs 80 and 81. 123 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al., supra note 120, para. 193.