3 2. That Peru has been a State Party to the American Convention (hereinafter, the “American Convention” or the “Convention”) since July 28, 1978, and that it accepted the binding jurisdiction of the Court on January 21, 1981. 3. That, pursuant to article 67 of the American Convention, States Parties must fully comply with the judgments delivered by the Court in time fashion3. 4. 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 level4. 5. That, in relation to the procedure to monitor compliance with the judgments, article 63(4) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court5 establishes that “once the Tribunal has obtained all the relevant information, it shall determine the state of compliance with its decisions and issue the pertinent orders”. 6. 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 municipal laws to escape from their pre-established international responsibility. The treaty obligations of States Parties are binding on all State powers and organs.6 7. That the States Parties to the Convention must ensure compliance with its provisions and their inherent effects (effet utile) within their respective domestic legal systems. This principle applies not only in connection with the substantive provisions of human rights treaties (i.e. those dealing with the protected rights) but also in connection with procedural rules, such as the ones concerning compliance with the decisions of the Court. Such obligations are intended to be interpreted and enforced in a manner such that the protected guarantee is truly practical and effective, taking into account the special nature of human rights treaties7. 3 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para 60; Case of the Caracazo V. Venezuela. Monitoring Compliance with the Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 23, 2009, considering clause four and case of Cantoral Huamaní and Garcia Santa Cruz V. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with the Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, of September 21, 2009; Considering clause four. 4 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. Competence, supra note 1, para. 60; Case of the Caracazo V. Venezuela, supra note 3, considering clause three and Case of Cantoral Huamaní and Garcia Santa Cruz V. Peru, supra note 3, considering clause three. 5 Added by the Court during its LXXXII Ordinary Period of Sessions, in the session held on January 29, 2009. 6 See International Responsibility for the Promulgation and Enforcement of Laws in Violation of the Convention (articles 1and 2 American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-14/94 of December 9, 1994, Series A Nº.14, para. 35; Case of the Caracazo V. Venezuela, supra note 3, considering clause five and Case of Cantoral Huamaní and Garcia Santa Cruz V. Peru, supra note 3, considering clause five. 7 Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein V. Peru. Competence. Judgment of the Inter-American Court of Human rights of September 24, 1999. Series C Nº 54, para. 37; Case of the Caracazo V. Venezuela, supra note 3, considering clause six and Case of Cantoral Huamaní and Garcia Santa Cruz V. Peru, supra note 3, considering clause six.