8 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.1 7. That, in the judgment on reparations, the Court ratified the pecuniary reparation set out in the reparations agreement2 and approved the method for complying with the reparations proposed in this agreement3. Consequently, the Court indicated that the State must adopt all necessary measures to make all the payments corresponding to pecuniary reparations during the first quarter of the 2002 fiscal year, as the parties had agreed.4 8. That, bearing in mind the arrangement reached by the parties in this agreement, the Court stated in the judgment on reparations of November 30, 2001, that: 35. As regards the manner of payment, article five of the agreement [...] states that the payment will be made directly to the surviving victims and directly to each of the beneficiaries of the reparations, “in the proportions set forth in the respective Declaration of Heirship” and that, in the case of reparations to minors, the State will deposit the indemnification in a “trust fund under the most favorable conditions according to Peruvian banking practices.” 9. That, according to the information forwarded to the Court, the minors who are beneficiaries of the reparations are: Luis Alvaro León Flores, son of the victim Luis Antonio León Borja; Cristina and Ingrid Elizabeth, both Ríos Rojas, daughters of the victim, Manuel Isaías Ríos Pérez; and Rocío Rosales Capillo, daughter of the victim Alejandro Rosales Alejandro. 10. That the manner in which the State must comply with the payment of the compensation corresponding to the beneficiaries who are minors consists in placing the compensation amounts in a trust fund “under the most favorable conditions according to Peruvian banking practices” (supra eighth considering paragraph). 11. That, according to the law, it is the State that should defray the expenses arising from the trust fund rather than the beneficiaries of the reparation5. 12. That, as part of the fair compensation referred to in Article 63(1) of the Convention, it is reasonable that the victims or their successors should receive the 1 Cf. Benavides Cevallos case. Compliance with judgment. Order of September 9, 2003, third considering paragraph; Baena Ricardo et al. case. Compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of June 6, 2003, fourth considering paragraph; and “The Last Temptation of Christ” case (Olmedo Bustos et al.). Compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 28, 2002, third considering paragraph. 2 The agreement on reparations in this case was signed by the representatives of the victims and their next of kin and the State on August 22, 2001; it was also agreed to by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. Cf. Barrios Altos case. Reparations (Art. 63(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of November 30, 2001. Series C No. 87, paras. 11, 17, 18, 21 and 38. 3 Cf. Barrios Altos case. Reparations, supra nota 2, para. 39. 4 Cf. Barrios Altos case. Reparations, supra nota 2, paras. 35 and 38. 5 Cf. Suárez Rosero case. Compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of December 4, 2001, first operative paragraph