3. That the Court will keep open the procedure to monitor compliance with the Judgment, pursuant to the provisions of considering paragraphs 16 and 24 of this Order. 3. The briefs of August 10 and October 31, 2012, in which the Republic of Panama (hereinafter “the State” or “Panama”) forwarded information on compliance with the Judgment. 4. The brief of August 30, 2012, and the attachments, in which the Center for Justice and International Law (hereinafter also “CEJIL”) submitted its observations on the information provided by the State. 5. The communications of August 31, September 16, 17, 18 and 22, and December 26, 2012, and January 4 and 15, and February 1, 2013, in which the Organización de Trabajadores Víctimas de la Ley 25 (hereinafter also “the Organización de Trabajadores Víctimas”) presented its observations on the information provided by the State, and also the documentation presented by this organization on October 29, 2012, with regard to some internal mechanisms and requests made regarding compliance with the Judgment. 6. The brief of September 25, 2012, in which the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American Commission” or “the Commission”) forwarded its observations on the State’s reports and on the observations submitted by the two representatives. CONSIDERING THAT: 1. One of the inherent attributes of the jurisdictional functions of the Court is to monitor compliance with its decisions. 2. Panama has been a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the American Convention” or “the Convention”) since June 22, 1978, and accepted the obligatory jurisdiction of the Court on May 9, 1990. 3. Article 68(1) of the American Convention stipulates 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 at the national level of the Court’s decisions in its judgments.1 4. In view of the final and non-appealable nature of the judgments of the Court, as established in Article 67 of the American Convention, the State must comply with them fully and promptly. 5. The obligation to comply with the decisions in the Court’s judgments corresponds to a basic principle of international law, 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 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.3 1 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Jurisdiction. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 131, and Case of Salvador Chiriboga v. Ecuador. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Court of October 24, 2012, second considering paragraph. 2 Cf. International Responsibility for the Promulgation and Enforcement of Laws in Violation of the Convention (Arts. 1 and 2 American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-14/94 of December 9, 2