6 documentation. In the latter case, it noted that this was specifically due to the lack of “documents supporting his legal existence,” and that said funds were deposited in an account in the Bank of Guatemala (Central Bank). With respect to the transfer and burial of the remains of Pablo Corado Barrientos, the State reported that his next of kin “ha[d] not yet reached a decision on the matter.” Regarding the measures of reparation ordered by the Court with respect to domestic law, the State pointed out that it had “forward[ed] copies of the judgments [rendered by the Court] to the President of the Supreme Court of Justice and to the Minister of the Interior, asking them to make their observations and suggesting that they adopt the pertinent measures.” 10. The February 25, March 15, April 29, May 1 and 8, 2002 notes by the next of kin of Ana Elizabeth Paniagua, in which they made their observations regarding the compensation to be paid to them. The State sent its observations on said communications on March 12 and April 4, 2002. 11. The February 11, 2003 communication by the Secretariat in which, under instructions by the President, it asked the State to send a detailed report on compliance with the Judgment on reparations. The Secretariat also reiterated said request to the State on July 29, 2003. CONSIDERING: 1. It is an inherent power of the judicial functions of the Court to monitor compliance with its decisions. 2. Guatemala has been a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” or “the American Convention”) since May 25, 1978 and it recognized the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on March 9, 1987. 3. In view of the definitive and unappealable nature of the judgments of the Court, as set forth in Article 67 of the American Convention, the State must promptly and completely comply with them within the term set for this purpose. 4. Article 68(1) of the American Convention provides 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 obligations of the States Party are binding for all branches or bodies of the State. 5. The obligation to comply with the decisions of the Court is in accordance with a basic principle of law regarding the international responsibility of the State, backed by international case law, according to which the States must fulfill their international treaty obligations in good faith (pacta sunt servanda). In addition, as this Court has stated and is set forth in Article 27 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, they cannot avoid fulfilling their previously established international obligation due to domestic reasons.3 3 Cf., Bulacio Case. Judgment of September 18, 2003. Series C No. 100, paras. 116-118; Benavides Cevallos Case. Compliance with judgment. Order of the Court of September 9, 2003, Considering three and six; and Baena Ricardo et al. Case. Compliance with judgment. Order of the Court of June 6, 2003, Considering four.