6 3. That the representatives of the victim and her next of kin, and also the InterAmerican Commission on Human Rights, must submit their comments on the report of the State mentioned in the preceding operative paragraph within 15 days of receiving it. […] 19. The note of the Secretariat of October 27, 2003, in which it reiterated to the State that it must present the report on the status of compliance with judgment in this case, in accordance with the Court’s Order of September 9, 2003, the time limit for which had expired on October 18, 2003. It also requested the State, the Commission and the representatives of the victim’s next of kin to advise whether there were any streets in Ecuador that bore the name of Consuelo Benavides Cevallos, as decided by the Court in its judgment of June 19, 1998. 20. The brief of the Inter-American Commission of November 14, 2003, in which it advised that “by a decision of the Municipal Council of Cuenca, province of Azuay, one of the streets of that city was named for the victim; that in the city of Tulcán, province of Carchi, a park had been created with the name of ‘Consuelo Benavides Cevallos’; and that the Ministry of Education and Culture had adopted a ministerial agreement for a school in the province of Los Ríos to be named in commemoration of the victim.” It added that “the Municipal Council of the Metropolitan District of Quito had adopted a resolution approximately two years previously, by which one of the streets of the city would be named ‘Consuelo Benavides Cevallos’, although this is still pending execution.” Lastly, the Commission reiterated its concern about the State’s failure to comply with the fourth operative paragraph of the judgment in relation to its obligation to investigate, prosecute and punish those responsible for the violations committed in this case. CONSIDERING: 1. That one of the inherent attributes of the jurisdictional functions of the Court is to monitor compliance with its decisions. 2. That the State of Ecuador has been a State Party to the American Convention since December 28, 1977, and accepted the obligatory jurisdiction of the Court on August 13, 1984. 3. That, in view of the final and non-appealable character of the judgments of the Court, as established in Article 67 of the American Convention, they should be complied with fully and promptly. 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.” The treaty obligations of the States Parties are binding for all the powers and organs of the States. 5. That Article 1(1) of the Convention established the obligation of the States Parties to respect the rights and freedoms recognized in that instrument and to ensure their free and full exercise to all persons subject to their jurisdiction. 6. That the obligation to comply with the decisions of the Court’s judgments corresponds to a basic principle of the law of the international responsibility of the State, supported by international case law, according to which, a State must comply with its international treaty obligations in good faith (pacta sunt servanda) and, as