2 3. The brief dated November 26, 2007 with appendixes, in which the representatives of the victim and his next of kin (hereinafter "the representatives") submitted their comments on the State's report. 4. The brief dated December 20, 2007, in which the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter "the Inter-American Commission" or "the Commission") submitted its observations on the State's report. CONSIDERING: 1. That monitoring compliance with its judgments is a power inherent in the judicial functions of the Court. 2. That Brazil has been a State Party to the American Convention (hereinafter "the American Convention" or "the Convention") since September 25, 1992 and, in accordance with article 62 thereof, acknowledged the adjudicatory jurisdiction of the Court on December 10, 1998. 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, the States are required to guarantee that the Court’s orders are implemented in decisions made at the domestic level.1 4. That, because the judgments of the Court are final and not subject to appeal, as established in Article 67 of the American Convention, the State is required to promptly and fully comply therewith. 5. That the obligation to comply with the Court’s judgments conforms to a basic principle of the law on the international responsibility of States, as supported by international case law, under which States are required to comply with their international treaty obligations in good faith (pacta sunt servanda) and, as previously held by the Court and provided for in Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969, States cannot invoke their internal laws for failure to honor their preestablished international responsibility. The States Parties’ obligations under the Convention bind all branches and organs of State.2 1 Cfr. I/A Court HR. Case of Baena-Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003, Series C No. 104, par. 131; I/A Court HR. Case of López Álvarez v. Honduras. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 6, 2008. Considering clause 7; and I/A Court HR. Case of Caballero Delgado y Santana v. Colombia. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 6, 2008, Considering clause 3. Cfr. I/A Court HR. International Responsibility for the Promulgation and Enforcement of Laws in Violation of the Convention (Arts. 1 and 2 of the American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-14/94 of December 9, 1994, par. 35; I/A Court HR. Case of Cantoral Benavides v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 7, 2008, Considering clause 5; and I/A Court HR. Case of Caballero Delgado y Santana v. Colombia. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment, supra note 1, Considering clause 5. 2