7 Ocampo and Juliana Minez de Sifuentes, beneficiaries of the victim […] Odar Sifuentes Minez.” The attachments to this brief were forwarded on November 3, 2003. 21. The note of the Secretariat of October 30, 2003, in which, on the instructions of the President, it granted until November 7, 2003, for the representatives of the victims and their next of kin and the Inter-American Commission to forward any comments they deemed pertinent on the information submitted by the State on October 21, 2003. 22. The brief of November 5, 2003, in which FEDEPAZ forwarded its comments on the information on compliance with the judgment on reparations submitted by the State on October 21, 2003 (supra twentieth having seen paragraph). With regard to the information provided by Peru, FEDEPAZ indicated that “the Peruvian State had indeed made pecuniary reparations [...] as follows: [a] Norma Haydee Quispe Valle, beneficiary and daughter of the victim, Lucio Quispe Haunaco, $28,822.67 (twentyeight thousand eight hundred and twenty-two United States dollars and sixty-seven cents)[, and to] Tehódulo Isidoro Sifuentes Ocampo and Juliana Minez de Sifuentes, parents of the victim, Odar Mender Sifuentes Minez, $175,000.00 (one hundred and seventy-five thousand United States dollars).” 23. The communication of November 6, 2003, in which the Inter-American Commission forwarded its comments on the information on compliance with the judgment on reparations presented by the State on October 21, 2002 (supra twentieth having seen paragraph). The Commission stated that “it [had] received a copy of the petitioners’ confirmation [...] that the Peruvian State has made the pecuniary reparation set out in the agreement on full reparation to the victims and next of kin in the Barrios Altos case, to Norma Haydée Quispe Valle ($28,822.67) and to Tehódulo Isidoro Sifuentes Ocampo and Juliana Minez de Sifuentes ($175,000.00)[, t]hereby complying with the Court’s requirement.” CONSIDERING: 1. That one of the inherent attributes of the jurisdictional functions of the Court is to monitor compliance with its decisions. 2. That Peru has been a State Party to the American Convention since July 28, 1978, and accepted the obligatory jurisdiction of the Court on January 21, 1981. 3. That 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.” 4. That, in view of the final and unappealable character of the judgments of the Court, as established in Article 67 of the American Convention, they should be complied with fully and promptly by the State. 5. That the treaty obligations of the States Parties are binding for all the powers and organs of the State. 6. That the obligation to comply with the decisions in the Court’s judgments corresponds to a basic principle of the law of the international responsibility of the State, supported by international case law, according to which, a State must comply