4 1. That monitoring compliance with its judgments is a power inherent in the judicial functions of the Court. 2. That Chile has been a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter "the American Convention") since August 21, 1990, and accepted the binding jurisdiction of the Court that same day. 3. That, pursuant to Article 68(1) of the American Convention, “[t]he States Parties to the Convention undertake to comply with the judgment of the Court in any case to which they are parties.” For such purpose, the States are required to guarantee that the Court’s orders are implemented in decisions made at the domestic level.2 4. That, because the judgments of the Court are final and not subject to appeal, as established in Article 67 of the American Convention, the State is required to promptly and fully comply therewith. 5. That the obligation to comply with the Court’s decisions conforms to a basic principle of the law on the international responsibility of States, as supported by international case law, 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 internal laws for failure to honor their pre-established international responsibility. The States Parties’ obligations under the Convention bind all branches and organs of State.3 6. That the States Parties to the Convention are required to guarantee compliance with the provisions thereof and their effects (effet utile) within their own domestic laws. This principle is applicable not only to the substantive provisions of human rights treaties (i.e. those dealing with protected rights), but also to procedural rules, such as those concerning compliance with the decisions of the Court. These obligations are to be interpreted and enforced in a manner such that the protected guarantee is truly practical and effective, bearing in mind the special nature of human rights treaties.4 2 Cf. Case of Baena-Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003, Series C No. 104, par. 131; Case of Servellón-García et al. v. Honduras. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of August 5, 2008, Considering Clause 3; and Case of Goiburú et al. v. Paraguay. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of August 6, 2008, Considering Clause 3. 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, párr. 35; Case of Servellón-García et al. v. Honduras, supra note 2, Considering Clause 5; and Case of Goiburú et al. v. Paraguay, supra note 2, Considering Clause 5. 4 Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Competence. Judgment of September 24, 1999, Series C No. 54, par. 37; Case of Servellón-García et al. v. Honduras, supra note 2, Considering Clause 6; and Case of Goiburú et al. v. Paraguay, supra note 2, Considering Clause 6.