3 6. The brief of November 27, 2007 whereby the representatives submitted their observations to the State's reports. 7. The communication of December 21, 2007 by which the Commission requested an extension until January 10, 2008 to forward the observations to the first State’s report. 8. The Secretariat's note of January 7, 2008 by which, following the instructions of the President of the Court, it informed that the Court granted the extension requested by the Commission. 9. The brief of January 18, 2008 whereby the Commission submitted the observations to the first State’s report. 10. The communication of February 21, 2008 by which the State indicated that the Attorney General of Paraguay requested the President of the Republic to "enact a Decree for the implementation of the Inter-Institutional Commission in order to comply with the Judgments delivered by the Court." CONSIDERING: 1. It is an inherent power of the judicial functions of the Court to monitor compliance with its decisions. 2. That Paraguay has been a State Party to the American Convention since August 24, 1989, and that it accepted the binding jurisdiction of the Court on March 26, 1993. 3. That 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”. Therefore, the States must ensure that the rulings set out in the decisions of the Court are implemented at the domestic level.1 4. That, in consideration of section 67 of the American Convention which stipulates that the judgment of the Court shall be final and shall not be subject to appeal, such judgment shall be fully and promptly complied with by the State. 5. That the obligation to comply with the rulings of the Court conforms to a basic principle of the law on the international responsibility of States, under which States are required to fulfill 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 1 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para 60; Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community v. Nicaragua. Monitoring Compliance with the Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 7, 2008; Considering Clause three and Case of Gómez- Paquiyauri Brothers v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 3, 2008, Considering Clause three.