CONSIDERING THAT: 1. It is an inherent power of the judicial functions of the Court to monitor compliance with its decisions. 2. Panama has been a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” or “the American Convention”) since June 22, 1978, and accepted the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on May 9, 1990. 3. In accordance with the provisions of Article 67 of the American Convention, the State must comply fully and promptly with the Court’s judgments. Furthermore, 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, States must ensure that the rulings set forth in the Court’s decisions are implemented at the domestic level.1 4. The obligation to comply with the rulings of the Court corresponds to a basic principle of international law, supported by international jurisprudence, according to which States must comply with their international treaty obligations in good faith (pacta sunt servanda) and, as this Court has already indicated and as established in Article 27 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, States cannot, for domestic reasons, neglect their pre-established international responsibility.2 The treaty obligations of States Parties are binding for all State powers and organs.3 5. 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 to the substantive provisions of human rights treaties (i.e. those addressing protected rights), but also to procedural provisions, such as those referring to compliance with the Court’s decisions. These obligations should be interpreted and applied in such a manner that the protected guarantee is truly practical and effective, bearing in mind the special nature of human rights treaties.4 1. Obligation to investigate the facts that gave rise to the violations in the instant case, and to identify, prosecute and, if applicable, punish those responsible (Operative Paragraph 12 of the Judgment) 1 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. Jurisdiction. Judgment of the Inter-American Court of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 60; and Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 27, 2012, considering paragraph 2. 2 Cf. International responsibility for the promulgation and enforcement of laws in violation of the Convention (Arts. 1 and 2 of the American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-14/94 of December 9, 1994. Series A, No. 14, para. 35, and Case of Caballero Delgado and Santana v. Colombia. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 27, 2012, considering para. 5. 3 Cf. Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of November 17, 1999, Considering para. 3, and Case of Caballero Delgado Santana v. Colombia, supra note 2, considering para. 5. 4 Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Jurisdiction. Judgment of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 24, 1999. Series C No. 54, para. 37, and Case of Caballero Delgado and Santana v. Colombia, supra note 2, considering para. 6. 2