7 daughter of Rafael Samuel Gómez, absent any observation by the aggrieved party, the Commission refrained from making any comment on this topic until it was provided with all the essential elements of information to that effect; and f) concerning the obligation to pay the victims’ next of kin an amount of money as compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, including the deposit of compensation in favor of minor Nora Emely Gómez Peralta in a banking investment, as well as to pay costs and expenses, the Commission acknowledged the advances described in the state’s report on this aspect of compliance. However, the Commission believed that the observations by the aggrieved party are essential in order to form an opinion on whether this obligation has been met. CONSIDERING: 1. That one of the inherent attributes of the jurisdictional functions of the Court is to monitor compliance with its decisions; 2. That Peru has been a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter, the “American Convention” or the “Convention”) since July 28, 1978, and had acknowledged the contentions jurisdiction of the Court on January 21, 1981; 3. That on July 8, 2004, the Court issued a Judgment on the merits, reparations and costs in this present case (supra Having Seen clause No. 1) 4. That Article 68(1) of the American Convention sets out 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 States must ensure the implementation of the decisions in the Court’s judgments at the domestic level.1 5. That, in view of the final and non-appealable character of the judgments of the Court, as established in Article 67 of the American Convention, they should be complied with fully and promptly. 6. 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 comply 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 1 Cfr. Case of the “Five Pensioners”. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of July 4, 2006; Considering clause No. 3; Case of Bámaca-Velásquez. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 4, 2006; Considering Clause No. 3; and Case of the "Juvenile Reeducation Institute". Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 4, 2006; Considering clause No. 3.