2 3. The briefs submitted on October 14 and December 17, 2009, and March 4, 2010 and their annexes, whereby the representatives of the victim (hereinafter “the representatives”) presented their observations on the information presented by the State. 4. The communications submitted on October 30, 2009, January 25 and April 9, 2010, whereby the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “Inter-American Commission” or “the Commission”) presented its observations on the submissions of the State and briefs of the representatives, in relation to the state of compliance with the Judgment. CONSIDERING THAT: 1. The monitoring of compliance with its decisions is a power inherent to the judicial functions of the Court. 2. Argentina has been a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the American Convention” or “Convention”) since September 5, 1984, and accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court on the same date. 3. 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.” Therefore, States must ensure that the rulings set out in the decisions of the Court are implemented at the domestic level.1 4. In view of the final and not-subject-to-appeal character of the judgments of the Court, as established in Article 67 of the American Convention, the State should 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 the law of international responsibility of the State, supported by international case law, according to which States must comply with their 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 6. The States Parties to the Convention must guarantee compliance with its provisions and their effects (effet utile) within their respective domestic legal systems. This principle is applicable not only with regard to the substantive norms of human rights treaties (that is, those which contain provisions concerning the protected rights), but also with regard to 1 Cf. Case of Baena-Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 131; Case of the Saramaka People v. Suriname. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the President of the Court of April 20, 2010, considering clause thirteen, and Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panamá. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the President of the Court of April 20, 2010, considering clause three. 2 Cf. International responsibility for execution and application of laws in violation of the Convention (Arts. 1 and 2 of the American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-14/94 December 9, 1994. Series A No. 14, para. 35; Case of the Saramaka People v. Suriname, supra note 1, considering clause five, and Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panamá, supra note 1, considering clause four. 3 Cf. Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Court of November 17, 1999. Series C No. 59, considering clause three; Case of the Saramaka People v. Suriname, supra note 1, considering clause five, and Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panamá, supra note 1, considering clause four.