3 12. The notes of the Secretariat of August 20, September 21 and October 5, 2010, in which, inter alia, it asked the parties to submit observations on the information forwarded. 13. The brief of November 15, 2010, in which the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American Commission” or “the Commission”) forwarded its observations on the report presented by the State and on the information sent by Mr. Chaparro and by his representatives. 14. The note of the Secretariat of November 17, 2010, requesting the State to forward the curricula vitae of Alicia Arias Salgado and Carlos Andreta, the arbitrators proposed by Ecuador (supra eleventh having seen paragraph). 15. The brief of November 24, 2010, and its attachments, in which Ecuador forwarded certain information concerning the arbitrators proposed by the State, as well as the curricula vitae of Rómulo Antonio García Sosa and Alicia Arias Salgado. 16. The note of the Secretariat of December 20, 2010, granting the representatives and the Commission a specific time frame for forwarding any observations they deemed pertinent on the information presented by the State. 17. The briefs of January 12 and 19, 2010, in which Mr. Chaparro and the InterAmerican Commission, respectively, forwarded their observations on the arbitrators proposed by the State. CONSIDERING THAT: 1. One of the inherent attributes of the jurisdictional functions of the Court is to monitor compliance with its decisions. 2. Ecuador has been a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” or “the American Convention”) since December 28, 1977, and accepted the jurisdiction of the Court on July 24, 1984. 3. 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.” To this end, the State must ensure implementation at the national level of the Court’s decisions in its judgments.1 4. In view of the final and non-appealable nature of the judgments of the Court, as established in Article 67 of the American Convention, the State must comply with them fully and promptly. 5. The obligation to comply with the decisions in 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 1 Cf. Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 131; Case of Valle Jaramillo v. Colombia. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of December 21, 2010, third considering paragraph, and Case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of December 22, 2010, third considering paragraph.