7 satisfaction, as the matter of punishment of those responsible is still pending, together with that of “putting an end to all uncertainty regarding [his] rights, constantly under attack due to almost uninterrupted renewal of criminal prosecution against [him], for the same facts.” He also stated that it was absolutely impossible for him to pay the attorneys’ fees for his defense in the process of following up on compliance with the judgment of the Court. 21. The October 4, 2004 brief in which the Commission submitted its comments on the latest report by the State and pointed out that because “Mr. Cesti Hurtado now has direct access to the Court, and the Commission, in this case, “has no other independent source of information on compliance,” it would be an unnecessary duplication to repeat the information that he had already supplied to this Court. The Commission also pointed out that “the actions of the State and appraisal of the attorney’s fees by the Court […] have left [Mr. Cesti Hurtado] without the services of a defense counsel in this key stage of compliance with the judgment.” 22. The October 17, 2004 brief in which the victim requested that the arbitral award of September 14, 2004 be included "in the Court’s Judgment on Reparations for it to be an integral part of it.” On October 28, 2004 the victim forwarded said arbitration award pursuant to which the State must pay Mr. Cesti Hurtado US$ 3,065,085 (three million sixty-five thousand and eighty-five United States dollars), composed of the following items: US$ 3,000,000 (three million United States dollars) for loss of value of the business and US$ 65,085 (sixty-five thousand eighty-five United States dollars) for lost earnings of Mr. Cesti Hurtado in the period from July 1997 to December 1999. WHEREAS: 1. Oversight of compliance with its decisions is an authority inherent to the judicial functions of the Court. 2. Peru has been a State Party to the American Convention since July 28, 1978, and it accepted the adjudicatory jurisdiction of the Court on January 21, 1981. 3. Article 68(1) of the American Convention sets forth 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.” For this, the States must ensure domestic implementation of 1 the orders issued by the Court in its rulings. 4. In view of the final and unappealable nature of the judgments of the Court, pursuant to Article 67 of the American Convention, the State must fully and promptly comply with them. 5. The obligation to comply with the orders issued by the Court in its rulings is in accordance with a basic principle of Law regarding the international responsibility of the State, backed by international jurisprudence, according to which the States must carry out their international treaty obligations in good faith (pacta sunt servanda) and, as this Court has stated and is set forth in Article 27 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, they may not refuse to undertake the 1 See Case of Baena-Ricardo et al.. Competence. November 28, 2003 Judgment. Series C No. 104, para. 131.