3 submit its observations on the state reports of January 7 and August 18, 2010, respectively. CONSIDERING: 1. Monitoring compliance with its decisions is a inherent power to the jurisdictional functions of the Court. 2. Guatemala has been a State Party to the American Convention since May 25, 1978, and it accepted the binding jurisdiction of the Court on March 9, 1987. 3. In accordance with the provisions of State should fully comply with the Court's the American Convention stipulates that undertake to comply with the decision of parties." To this end, States should ensure set forth in the Court's rulings.1 Article 67 of the American Convention, the Judgments. Furthermore, Article 68(1) of "the State Parties to the Convention the Court in any case to which they are the domestic implementation of provisions 4. The obligation to comply with the Tribunal's rulings conforms to a basic principle of international law, 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, ignore their pre-established international responsibility.2 The treaty obligations of State Parties are binding on all branches and bodies of the State.3 5. The States Parties to the Convention must guarantee compliance with the provisions thereof and their effectiveness (effet utile) within their domestic legal systems. This principle applies not only to the substantive provisions of human rights treaties (i.e., those addressing protected rights), but also to procedural provisions, such as those concerning compliance with the Court’s decisions. These obligations should be interpreted and enforced in such a manner that the protected guarantee is truly practical and effective, bearing in mind the special nature of human rights treaties.4 1 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 60; Case of Valle Jaramillo v. Colombia. Monitoring compliance with Judgment. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of December 21, 2010, Considering Clause three, and Case of the Ituango Massacre v. Colombia. Monitoring compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of December 22, 2010, Considering Clause three and four. 2 Cf. International responsibility for the issuance and application of laws that violate the Convention (Articles 1 and 2 of the American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion AO-14/94 of December 9, 1994. Series A No. 14, para. 35; Case of Valle Jaramillo v. Colombia, supra note 1, Considering Clause four, and Case of Castro Castro Prison v. Peru. Monitoring compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of December 21, 2010, Considering Clause six. 3 Cf. Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of November 17, 1999 , Considering Clause three; Case of Valle Jaramillo v. Colombia, supra note 1, Considering Clause four, and Case of Castro Castro Prison v. Peru, supra note 2, Considering Clause six. 4 Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Competence. Judgement of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 24, 1999. Series C No. 54, para. 37; Case of Valle Jaramillo v. Colombia, supra note 1, Considering Clause five, and Case of Castro Castro Prison v. Peru, supra note 2, Considering Clause seven.

Select target paragraph3