10 10. The note of the Secretariat of June 27, 2006, in which it informed the parties that the preceding brief had been submitted to the consideration of the Court in plenary session during its twenty-ninth special session held in San Salvador, El Salvador. On the instructions of the Court, it advised that the Court had taken note of Mr. Vera’s statement with regard to compliance with the respective judgment, and that this would be assessed opportunely. Nevertheless, since his request for provisional measures was based merely on the presentation of the said brief, his situation did not constitute, prima facie, one of extreme gravity and urgency that could cause irreparable damage, in the terms of Article 63(2) of the Convention. Consequently, it was not admissible to order the adoption of provisional measures of protection at that time. CONSIDERANDO: 1. That it is an inherent attribute of the jurisdictional functions of the Court to monitor compliance with its decisions. 2. That Paraguay has been a State Party to the American Convention since August 24, 1989, and accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court on March 26, 1993. 3. That, Article 68(1) of the American Convention establishes 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.” To this end, the State must ensure implementation of the rulings of the Court in its decisions at the domestic level.1 4. That in view of the definitive and unappealable nature of the judgments of the Court, pursuant to Article 67 of the American Convention, they should be complied with promptly and fully by the State. 5. 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 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 party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty.2 The treaty obligations of the States Parties are binding for all the powers and organs of the State. 6. That the States Parties to the Convention must ensure compliance with its provisions and their inherent effects (effet utile) within their respective domestic legal systems. This principle is applicable with regard not only to the substantive 1 Cf. the case of the Constitutional Court. Compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 7, 2006, third considering paragraph; the case of the 19 Tradesmen. Compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 2, 2006, third considering paragraph, and the case of Ricardo Canese. Compliance with judgment. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of February 2, 2006, third considering paragraph. 2 Cf. the case of the Constitutional Court. Compliance with judgment, supra note 1, fifth considering paragraph; the case of the 19 Tradesmen. Compliance with judgment, supra note 1, fifth considering paragraph, and the case of Ricardo Canese. Compliance with judgment, supra note 1, fifth considering paragraph.