2 2. The reports of November 27th, 2006 and September 5th, 2007 and their exhibits, by which the State of Colombia (hereinafter, the "State" or "Colombia"), established the adopted measures in order to comply with the Judgment delivered by this Tribunal on the matter. 3. The briefs of June 20th, 2007 and October 24, 2007, by victims' representatives (hereinafter, the "representatives") submitted their observations to the State's reports (supra Having Seen clause 2). 4. The briefs of January 17th and November 20th, 2007 by which the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights (hereinafter, the “Commission” or the “Inter-American Commission”) submitted the observations to the reports presented by the State (supra, Having Seen clause 2). CONSIDERING: 1. It is an inherent power of the judicial functions of the Court to monitor compliance with its decisions. 2. That Colombia has been a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter, the “American Convention”) since May 31, 1973, and that it accepted the binding jurisdiction of the Court on June 21, 1985. 3. 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”. Therefore, the States must ensure that the rulings set out in the decisions of the Court are implemented at the domestic level. 1. 4. That, in consideration of section 67 of the American Convention, which stipulates that the judgment of the Court shall be final and shall not be subject to appeal, such judgment shall be fully and promptly complied with by the State. 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, under which States are required to fulfill their international treaty obligations in good faith (pacta sunt servanda)2 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 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para 131; Case of García Asto and Ramírez Rojas. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of July 12, 2007, Having Seen Clause four; and Case of Molina Theissen. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 10, 2007, Considering Clause two. 1 2 Cf. International Responsibility for the Promulgation and Enforcement of Laws in Violation of the Convention (articles 1 and 2 American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-14/94 of September 9, 1994, Series A Nº.14, para. 35; Case of Garcia Asto and Ramirez Rojas v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Supra 1; Sixth Having Seen Clause and Case of Molina Theissen, Monitoring Compliance with Judgment, supra note 1, Having Seen Clause Three.