10 hearing may not be held in relation to the compliance with the Judgments ordered in the instant case insofar as, pursuant to the practice of the Court, monitoring proceedings regarding compliance with the judgments delivered by the Court are conducted in writing. 30. The brief filed by the Commission on September 15, 2006, in which it indicated that the situation of the victim is "unacceptable" and stated once more that it is essential that, pursuant to the principle of pacta sunt servanta, the State ensure all such measures as may be necessary to fully comply with the Judgments of the Court. 31. The brief filed by the victim's representative on September 19, 2006, and its Appendixes, whereby he informed the Court of the legal proceedings instituted in Peru “to have the payment made to Mr. Cesti-Hurtado revoked and returned, thus reversing the progress achieved so far.” 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 on Human Rights (hereinafter the “American Convention”) since July 28, 1978 and that, in accordance with Article 62 thereof, it accepted the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on January 21, 1981. 3. 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 4. That, given that the Court’s judgments are final and not subject to appeal, as set out in Article 67 of the American Convention, said judgments are to be promptly and fully complied with by the State. 5. The provisions of Article 65 of the American Convention regarding “the cases in which a state has not complied with its judgments.” 6. That the General Assembly of the OAS restated in its Resolution AG/RES. 2223 (XXXVI-O/06)2 Cf. 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; Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute”. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 4, 2006, Considering clause No. 3. 1 Resolution adopted at the fourth plenary session, held on June 6, 2006, entitled “Observations and Recommendations on The Annual Report of The Inter-American Court of Human Rights”, Operative Paragraph No. 4. 2