3 of the Judgment “adequate”; and that it valued the realization of the State’s act of acknowledgment. 10. The observations made by the representatives on November 28, 2006, in which, after an extension granted, they stated that the State contacted them a few days prior to holding the public act of acknowledgment of responsibility. Mrs. Jennifer Harbury traveled from Germany in order to be present. However, “[d]ue to the proximity of the date, Mrs. Harbury did not participate […] in the preparation of the act, except in the definition of the text for the invitations […]. However, she was not informed of the guest list, despite the fact that she was the one who had to guarantee the presence of other relatives of Bámaca in the act.” Besides, they expressed that “[f]or Mrs. Jennifer Harbury and for the next of kin [present at the] event it was a surprise that the only public official present was Mr. Frank La Rue. There was no other high-ranking official present and even less so an official representation of the army […]. This meant for the next of kin of Efraín Bámaca that the act was marred and did not comply with the intention of the […] Court, of being an act of pardon, of reparation, and of satisfaction.” Likewise, regarding the location of the remains of the victim, the representatives asked the Court that it “require that the State of Guatemala, without further delay, proceed to exhume the remains of Mr. Bámaca Velásquez according to the information included in the judicial case file and discussed within the international proceedings.” 11. The note of the Secretariat of the Court (hereinafter “the Secretariat”) of December 1, 2006, in which, following the instructions of the President of the Court, it requested that in its next report the State address the arguments of the representatives with regard to the public act (supra Having Seen paragraph number 10), and that it give a detailed report to the Court of the advances made to comply with the operative paragraphs still pending of the Judgments on Merits and Reparations. The deadline for submission of this report was set for January 31, 2007. Said term expired without the State presenting the information requested, despite that the Secretariat reiterated this request to the State through a note dated April 27, 2007. 12. The Commission’s communication dated December 12, 2006, through which it indicated that it referred to that stated in its communication of October 31, 2006 (supra Having Seen paragraph number 9) CONSIDERING: 1. That it is an inherent power of the jurisdictional functions of the Court to monitor compliance with its decisions. 2. That Guatemala has been a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the American Convention”) since May 25, 1978, and accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court on March 9, 1987. 3. That the obligation to comply with 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 fulfill 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