2 in order for the Tribunal to obtain information from the State regarding compliance with the Judgment and to hear the observations of both the Commission and the representatives in that regard. 10. The brief of the representatives of January 21, 2010. 11. The private hearing held at the seat of the Court on January 29, 2010.1 12. The brief of the representatives of February 2, 2010, whereby they sent the written version of the allegations submitted at the private hearing. CONSIDERING: 1. That one of the inherent attributes of the jurisdictional functions of the Court is to monitor compliance with its decisions. 2. That Venezuela has been a State Party to the American Convention (hereinafter, the “American Convention” or “the Convention") since August 9, 1977, and it accepted the binding jurisdiction of the Court on June 24, 1981. 3. That furthermore, under 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.” For that purpose, the States must guarantee the implementation of the Court’s decisions at the domestic level.2 4. That in view of the final and not-subject-to-appeal nature of the judgments of the Court, as established in Article 67 of the American Convention, they should be complied with fully and promptly. 5. 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, as supported by international case law, under which States are required to comply with 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 their pre-established international responsibility.3 The conventional obligations of the States Parties bound all powers and entities of the State.4 1 In accordance with Article 6(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the Court held the hearing with a panel of judges composed of: Judge Manuel E. Ventura, President in office, Judge Margarette May Macaulay, Judge Rhadys Abreu-Blondet and Judge Eduardo Vio-Grossi. There appeared before this hearing: (a) for the InterAmerican Commission: Silvia Serrano and Lilly Ching, advisors; b) for the victims and their representatives: Marino Alvarado from Programa Venezolano de Educación-Acción en Derechos Humanos (PROVEA) (Venezuelan Program of Education-Action on Human Rights (PROVEA)) and Francisco Quintana from the Center for Justice and International Law, and c) for the State: Germán Saltrón-Negretti, Official. 2 Cf. Case of Baena-Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 131; Case of Acevedo-Jaramillo et al. v. Peru. Monitoring compliance with Judgment. Order of the President of December 18, 2009, Considering clause No. 3; and Case of the Moiwana Community v. Suriname. Monitoring compliance with Judgment. Order of the Court of December 18, 2009, Considering clause No. 3. 3 Cf. International Responsibility for the Promulgation and Enforcement of Laws in Violation of the Convention (Arts. 1 and 2 American Convention of Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-14/94 of December 9, 1994. Series A No. 14, para. 14, para. 35; Case of Acevedo-Jaramillo et al. v. Peru, supra note 2, Considering clause No 4, and Case of the Moiwana Community v. Suriname, supra note 2, Considering clause No. 5. 4 Cf. Case of Castillo-Petruzzi et al. v. Peru. Monitoring compliance with Judgment. Order of the Court of November 17, 1999. Series C No. 47, para. 59; Considering clause No. 3; Case of Acevedo-Jaramillo et al. v. Peru, supra note 2, Considering clause No 4, and Case of the Moiwana Community v. Suriname, supra note 2, Considering clause No. 5.

Select target paragraph3