5 clause No. 9), a report on the compliance with the Reparations Judgment pronounced in this case. CONSIDERING: 1. That the monitoring of the compliance with its decisions is an inherent power of the jurisdictional functions of the Court. 2. That Argentina is a State Party to the American Convention since September 5, 1984 and it has acknowledged the Court jurisdiction on that same day. 3. That Article 68(1) of the American Convention sets forth that "[th]e States Parties to the Convention undertake to comply with the judgment of the Court in any case to which they are parties.” In order to achieve so, the States must guarantee the implementation –at domestic level- of what has been set forth by the Court in its decisions.2 4. That by virtue of the definite and unappealable nature of the Court judgments, according to what is set forth in Article 67 of the American Convention, these must be immediately and completely fulfilled by the State. 5. That the obligation to fulfill what has been set forth in the Court decisions corresponds to a basic principle of international liability of the State law, supported by international jurisprudence, according to which the States must comply with their international conventional obligations in good faith (pacta sunt servanda) and, as already pointed out by this Court and pursuant to Article 27 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, they can not fail to assume the already acquired international liability due to reasons of domestic nature.3 Conventional obligations of the States Parties involve all of the State’s powers and bodies. 6. That during the above mentioned private hearing the State, inter alia, expressed the following: a) as to the search and identification of the two out-of-wedlock children of Mr. Raúl Baigorria, measures were implemented, but none of them has yielded any positive results: during 2001, publications were made in the different graphic means of highest circulation at both national and provincial level, summoning the alleged out-of-wedlock children of Mr. Baigorria to appear before the Ministry of Justice and 2 Cf. IACHR. Case of Baena-Ricardo et al v. Panama. Jurisdiction. Judgment of November 28, 2003. C Series No. 104, par. 131; Case of García-Asto and Ramírez-Rojas v. Peru. Monitoring of Compliance with Judgment. Decision of July 12, 2007, Having Seen clause No. four, Case of Molina-Theissen v. Guatemala. Monitoring of Compliance with Judgment. Decision of July 10, 2007, Having Seen clause No. two. 3 Cf. IACHR. International Liability for the Issue and Application of Laws in Violation of the Convention (Articles 1 and 2, American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-14/94 of December 9, 1994. A Series No. 14, par. 35; Case of Baena-Ricardo et al v. Panama. Monitoring of Compliance with Judgment. Judgment of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 22, 2002, Having Seen clause No. three; Case of García-Asto and Ramírez-Rojas, supra note 3, Having Seen clause No. six, and Case of Molina-Theissen, supra note 3, Having Seen clause No. three.