2 7. The note of the Secretariat of May 21, 2010, whereby, following the instructions of the President of the Court, the parties were asked to submit the approval request to the Court (supra Having Seen 6). CONSIDERING: 1. Monitoring compliance with its decisions is an inherent power to the jurisdictional functions of the Court. 2. Columbia is a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter "the American Convention" or "the Convention") since July 31, 1973, and it acknowledged the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court on June 21, 1985. 3. In accordance with the provisions of Article 67 of the American Convention, the State should fully comply with the Court's Judgments. Furthermore, Article 68(1) of the American Convention stipulates, "the State Parties to the Convention undertake to comply with the Court's decisions in any case to which they are parties." To this end, States should ensure the domestic implementation of provisions set forth in the Court's rulings.1 4. The obligation to comply with the Tribunal's rulings conforms to a basic principle of international law, supported by international jurisprudence, under which States must abide by their international treaty obligations in good faith (pacta sunt servanda) and, as set forth by this Court and in Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969, States cannot, for domestic reasons, neglect their pre-established international responsibility.2 The treaty obligations of State Parties are binding on all branches and bodies of the State.3 5. The States Parties to the Convention must ensure compliance with its conventional provisions and their effectiveness (effet utile) within their respective domestic legal systems. This principle applies not only to the substantive provisions of human rights treaties (i.e., those addressing protected rights), but also to procedural provisions, such as those concerning compliance with the Court’s decisions. These obligations should be interpreted and enforced in such a manner that the protected 1 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 60; Case of Tibi v. Ecuador. Monitoring compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of March 3, 2011, Considering Clause 3, and Case of Valle Jaramillo v. Colombia. Monitoring compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 28, 2011, Considering Clause 3. 2 Cf. International responsibility for the issuance and application of laws that violate the Convention (Art. 1 and 2 of the American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion AO-14/94 of December 9, 1994. Series A No. 14, para. 35; Case of Tibi v. Ecuador, supra note 1, Considering Clause 4, and Case of Valle Jaramillo v. Colombia, supra note 1, Considering Clause 4. 3 Cf. Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of November 17, 1999, Considering Clause 3; Case of Tibi v. Ecuador, supra note 1, Considering Clause 4, and Case of Valle Jaramillo v. Colombia, supra note 1, Considering Clause 4.