3 1. [t]o declare admissible the State’s request for interpretation of the Judgment on preliminary objections, merits, reparations, and costs issued on November 28, 2007 in the Case of the Saramaka People, pursuant to paragraph 10 of th[e] Judgment. 2. To determine the scope of the content of Operative Paragraphs 5 through 9 of the Judgment on preliminary objections, merits, reparations, and costs issued on November 28, 200 in the Case of the Saramaka People, pursuant to chapters IV, V, VI, and VII of th[e] Judgment. […] 3. The report submitted on August 6, 2009, whereby the State informed the Court on its compliance with the Judgment, and the communication of November 17, 2009, whereby the State submitted “three (3) additional documents [relating] to [its] [f]irst [periodic] [r]eport.” 4. The communication submitted on September 12, 2009, whereby the representatives presented their observations to the State’s report with corresponding annexes (supra Having Seen 3). 5. The communication submitted on December 3, 2009, whereby the InterAmerican Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Commission” or “the InterAmerican Commission”) presented its observations to the State’s report (supra Having Seen 3). Considering: 1. The monitoring of compliance with its decisions is a power inherent to the judicial functions of the Court. 2. Suriname became a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention”) and recognized the jurisdiction of the Court on November 12, 1987. 3. Pursuant to Article 68(1) of the American Convention, “[t]he State Parties to the Convention undertake to comply with the judgment of the Court in any case to which they are parties.” Therefore, State Parties must ensure that the rulings set out in the decisions of the Court are implemented at the domestic level.1 4. Given the final and not-subject-to-appeal nature of the Court’s judgments as established by the provisions of Article 67 of the American Convention, said judgments are to be promptly and fully complied with by the State within the term set for this purpose. 5. The obligation to comply with the rulings of the Court conforms to a basic principle of law regarding the international responsibility of the State. That is, States must comply with their international treaty obligations in good faith (pacta sunt servanda) and, as this Court has previously stated and is set forth in Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969, they cannot invoke their municipal laws to escape their pre-established international responsibility. The State 1 Cf. Case of Baena-Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 131; Case of Barrios Altos v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Court of December 7, 2009, Considering clause No. 3, and Case of Las Palmeras v. Colombia. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Court of December 7, 2009, Considering clause No. 4.