4 CONSIDERING: 1. That inherently the attribution to supervise compliance with its orders is part of the Court’s jurisdictional functions. 2. That Argentina has been a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter the “Convention” or the “American Convention”) since September 5, 1984, and recognized the Court’s contentious jurisdiction on the same day. 3. That Article 68(1) of the American Convention states 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. That by virtue of the nature of the Court’s judgments as final and not subject to appeal, as established in Article 67 of the American Convention, the State must promptly and totally comply with them and within the term established to such effect. 5. That the obligation to comply with the orders of the Court corresponds to a basic principle concerning international State responsibility that is supported by international case law, according to which the States must undertake their conventional international obligations in good faith (pacta sunt servanda) and, as already pointed out by this Court and established by Article 27 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, they may not invoke the provisions of their internal law as justification for failure to comply with their already established international responsibility.2 The conventional obligations of the States Parties are binding to all branches and organs of the States. 6. That the States Parties to the Convention must ensure compliance with conventional provisions and their own effects (effet utile) at the level of their respective domestic legislations. This principle applies not only in relation to substantive provisions of human rights treaties (that is, those that contain provisions 1 Cf. Case of Baena-Ricardo et al.. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 131. 2 Cf. Matters of: Liliana Ortega et al., Luisiana Ríos et al., Luis Uzcátegui, Marta Colomina and Liliana Velásquez. Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 4, 2004, considering paragraph seven; Case of Baena-Ricardo et al. Competence, supra note 1, para. 128; and Case of Barrios Altos. Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 28, 2003, considering paragraph six.