19 h) By questioning the competence of the Court, the State “lessens its international prestige,” disregards the pacta sunt servanda principle and does not act in good faith28; and i) Panama attempts to leave the victims without protection and to discredit the Inter-American Court and the inter-American system for the protection of human rights.29 III COMPETENCE OF THE COURT TO MONITOR COMPLIANCE WITH ITS DECISIONS: CONSIDERATIONS OF THE COURT 58. Panama has been a State Party to the Convention since June 22, 1978, and, in accordance with Article 62 of this treaty, it accepted the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on May 9, 1990. On February 2, 2001, the Court delivered judgment on merits, and the reparations and costs. 59. Given that this is the first time that a State Party in a case before the InterAmerican Court questions the competence of the Court to monitor compliance with its judgments, a function carried out in all the cases on which judgment has been passed and invariably respected by the States Parties, this Court considers it necessary to refer to the obligation of the States to comply with the decisions of the Court in any case to which they are parties, and to the competence of the InterAmerican Court to monitor compliance with its decisions and issue instructions and orders on compliance with the measures of reparations it has ordered. 60. When the Court has ruled on the merits and the reparations and costs in a case submitted to its consideration, the State must observe the norms of the Convention that refer to compliance with that judgment or those judgments. In accordance with the provisions of Article 67 of the American Convention, the State must comply with the judgments of the Court promptly and fully. Moreover, 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.” The treaty obligation of the States Parties to comply promptly with the Court’s decisions binds all the State’s powers and bodies. A) STATE OBLIGATIONS a) Pacta sunt servanda 61. The obligation to comply with the provisions of the Court’s decisions corresponds to a basic principle of the law on the international responsibility of the State, which is supported by international case law; according to this, 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 28 Cf. Attachment to the brief with comments on the State’s brief of February 27, 2003, submitted by Manrique Mejía, Ivanor Alonso, Juan O. Sanjur, Fernando Dimas, Miguel Prado, Andrés Guerrero, Rafael Tait Yepes, Estebana Nash and Marina Villalobos on April 4, 2003, (supra para. 30). 29 Cf. brief with comments on the State’s brief of February 27, 2003, submitted by Fernando Del Río Gaona and Domingo De Gracia Cedeño on April 7, 2003, (supra para. 33).