3 10. The note of the Secretariat of the Court of July 20, 2010, through which Mr. Fernandez Sare was informed that the corresponding processing of his request for provisional measures would take place once the Tribunal received the original of said brief or, failing that, a facsimile with the signatures of all the applicants. The original copy of the request for provisional measures and its annexes were received on November 2, 2010. Next, following the President of the Tribunal’s instructions, said brief was sent to the Commission, to the State, and to the common interveners so that they could present their observations on this issue. 11. The briefs of November 11 and 12, 2010, by which the State, on one side, and the common interveners and the Inter-American Commission, on the other, issued their observations regarding the request for provisional measures (supra Having Seen 11). Notwithstanding, only the State specifically referred to the request for provisional measures, while the Commission and the common interveners referred to the fulfillment of the Judgment. CONSIDERING: A) Monitoring of compliance with Judgment 1. Monitoring compliance with its decisions is a power inherent to the judicial functions of the Court. 2. Peru has been a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights since July 28, 1978, and acknowledged the binding jurisdiction of the Court on January 21, 1981. 3. 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.” The State should, therefore, ensure that the Tribunal’s rulings are complied with within their jurisdiction.4 4. Given the final and uncontestable nature of the Court’s judgments, as set forth in Article 67 of the American Convention, said judgments are to be promptly and fully complied with by the State. 5. The obligation to comply with the Court’s judgments conforms to a basic principle of the law on the international responsibility of the State, as supported by international jurisprudence, under which the States are required to comply with their international treaty obligations in good faith (pacta sunt servanda) and, as previously held by the Court and as provided for in Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969, States may not invoke the provisions of domestic laws to justify non-fulfillment of its existing international responsibility. The treaty obligations of States Parties are binding on all State bodies and organs.5 6. The States Parties to the American Convention are required to guarantee compliance with the provisions thereof and their effectiveness (effet utile) within their respective domestic legal systems. This principle applies not only to the substantive provisions of 4 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo and others. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, paragraph 60; Case of Tristán Donoso v. Panama. Monitoring of Compliance with Judgment. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of September 1, 2010, Considering Clause three, and Case of De la Cruz Flores v. Peru. Monitoring of compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 1, 2010, Considering Clause three. 5 Cf. International Responsibility for the Expedition and Application of Laws in Violation of the Convention (Articles 1 and 2 of the American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-14/94 of December 9, 1994. Series A No. 14, paragraph 35; Case of Tristán Donoso v. Panama. Monitoring of compliance with Judgment. supra note 5, Considering Clause five, and Case of De la Cruz Flores v. Peru. Monitoring of compliance with Judgment, supra note 5, Considering Clause five.