3 1. Monitoring compliance with its decisions is an inherent power to the jurisdictional functions of the Court. 2. Peru is a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter "the American Convention") since July 28, 1978 and acknowledged the jurisdiction of the Court on January 21, 1981. 3. In accordance with the provisions of Article 67 of the American Convention, the State should fully comply with the Court's Judgments. Furthermore, Article 68(1) of the American Convention stipulates that "[t]he State Parties to the Convention undertake to comply with the decision of the Court in any case to which they are parties." To this end, States should ensure the domestic implementation of provisions set forth in the Court's rulings.2 4. The obligation to comply with the Tribunal's rulings conforms to a basic principle of international law, supported by international jurisprudence, under which States must abide by their international treaty obligations in good faith (pacta sunt servanda); and, as set forth by this Court and in Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969, States cannot, for domestic reasons, ignore their pre-established international responsibility.3 The treaty obligations of State Parties are binding on all branches and bodies of the State.4 5. The States Parties to the Convention must ensure compliance with its conventional provisions and their effectiveness (effet utile) within their respective domestic legal systems. This principle applies not only to the substantive provisions of human rights treaties (i.e., those addressing protected rights), but also to procedural provisions, such as those concerning compliance with the Court’s decisions. These obligations should be interpreted and enforced in such a manner that the protected guarantee is truly practical and effective, bearing in mind the special nature of human rights treaties.5 a) Regarding the obligation to effectively investigate the alleged facts, and to identify, prosecute and, where appropriate, punish the perpetrators of the violations (Operative Paragraph 7 of the Judgment); 6. The State reported that the judicial investigation into the crime against humanity (forced disappearance) committed against Mr. Santiago Gómez Palomino, which began on September 12, 2007 due to the complaint filed on June 26, 2007 by the Office of the Specialized Provincial Criminal Prosecutor for Human Rights, is currently before the Fourth 2 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 60; Case of Acevedo Buendía et al. ("Dismissed and Retired Workers of the Comptroller's Office") v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 1, 2011, Considering Clause 3, and Case of Palamara Iribarne v. Chile. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 1, 2011, Considering Clause 3. 3 Cf. International responsibility for the issuance and application of laws that violate the Convention (Art. 1 and 2 of the American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion AO-14/94 of December 9, 1994. Series A No. 14, para. 35; Case of Palamara Iribarne v. Chile, supra note 2, Considering Clause 4, and Case of Yatama v. Nicaragua. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of June 30, 2010 , Considering Clause 4. 4 Cf. Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of November 17, 1999, Considering Clause 3; Case of Palamara Iribarne v. Chile, supra note 2, Considering Clause 4, and Case of Yatama v. Nicaragua, supra note 3, Considering Clause 4. 5 Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Competence. Judgment of September 24, 1999. Series C No. 54, para. 37; Case of Acevedo Buendía et al. ("Dismissed and Retired Workers of the Comptroller's Office") v. Peru, supra note 2, Considering Clause 6, and Case of Palamara Iribarne v. Peru, supra note 2, Considering Clause 5.