4. The communications of February 11, and September 22, 2009; August 10, 2010, June 9, 2011, wherein the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American Commission” or “the Commission”) filed its observations to the information presented by the State and the representative. 5. The notes of the Secretariat of May 4, June 24, July 8, 2010, and May 3, 2011, wherein, following the instructions of the President of the Court, information regarding the compliance with the Judgment was requested of the parties. CONSIDERING THAT: 1. One of the inherent attributes of the judicial functions of the Court is to monitor compliance with its decisions. 2. Argentina has been a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the American Convention” or “the Convention”) since September 5, 1985, and it recognized the jurisdiction of the Court on the same date. 3. Article 68(1) of the American Convention stipulates that “[t]he States Parties to the Convention undertake to comply with the decision of the Court in any case to which they are parties.” To such effect, the States must ensure implementation, at the domestic level, of the requirements stated by the Court in its decisions. 2 4. Given their final and not subject to appeal nature, and pursuant to Article 67 of the American Convention, the judgments of the Court must be promptly fulfilled by the State in all of its aspects and within the period established. 5. The obligation to comply with the rulings of the Court conforms to a basic principle of the law on the international responsibility of States, as supported by international jurisprudence, under which States are required to comply with their international treaty obligations in good faith (pacta sunt servanda) and, as previously held by the Court and provided for in Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969, States cannot invoke their domestic laws to escape their preestablished international responsibility. 3 The State Parties��� obligations under the Convention bind all State branches and organs. 4 2 Cf. Case of Baena-Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 131; Case of Radilla Pacheco V. Mexico. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 19, 2011, Considering fifth, and Case of Acevedo Buendía et al. (“Discharged and Retired Employees of the Office of the Comptroller”) v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 01, 2011, Considering third and fourth. 3 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; Case of Castillo-Páez v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 19, 2011., Considering fourth, and Case of Radilla Pacheco V. Mexico, supra note 2, Considering fifth. 4 Cf. Case of Castillo-Petruzzi et al. v. Peru. Compliance with Judgment. Order of November 17, 1999. Series C No. 59, Considering third; Case of Castillo Páez V. Peru, supra note 3, Considering fourth, and Case of Radilla Pacheco V. Mexico, supra note 2, Considering fifth. 2