8 the State has partially complied with this obligation because the publication in another newspaper of nation-wide circulation is pending, and e) regarding the new criminal proceedings against Mr. Urcesino Ramírez Rojas, that “it is important to monitor this issue, in accordance with the terms of the Judgment and the principles of effectiveness, and the Commission trusts that the Supreme Court of Peru, when deciding the pending appeal, will observe […] the rights of Mr. Ramírez Rojas to be judged according to due process of law, with full guarantees of a hearing and defense for the accused”. CONSIDERING: 1. That monitoring compliance with its decisions is a power inherent in the judicial functions of the Court. 2. That Peru has been a State Party to the American Convention since July 28, 1978 and that it accepted the binding jurisdiction of the Court on January 21, 1981. 3. That on November 25, 2005, the Court delivered the Judgment on the merits, reparations, and costs in this case (supra Having Seen paragraph 1). 4. 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, States are required to guarantee implementation of the Court’s rulings at the domestic level.1 5. That, given the final and not-subject-to-appeal nature of the Court’s judgments, as established in Article 67 of the American Convention, said judgments are to be promptly and fully complied with by the State. 6. That the obligation to comply with the judgments of the Court conforms to a basic principle of the law of the international responsibility of the States, as supported by international case law, under which States are required to comply with the 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 municipal laws to escape their preestablished international responsibility. The treaty obligations of States Parties are binding on all State powers and organs.2 7. That the States Parties to the American Convention are required to guarantee compliance with the provisions thereof and secure their effects (effet utile) at the 1 Cf. Case of the Constitutional Court v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 17, 2004, Considering paragraph third; Case of Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 02, 2007, Considering paragraph second, and Case of Yatama v. Nicaragua. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 29, 2006, Considering paragraph third. 2 Cf. Case of Baena-Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 22, 2002, Considering paragraphs second and third; Case of Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment, supra note 1, Considering paragraph third, and Case of Yatama v. Nicaragua. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment, supra note 1, Considering paragraph fifth.