2 3. The briefs of March 14, 2007 and January 25, 2008, whereby the Republic of Nicaragua (hereinafter the “State” or “Nicaragua”) submitted its report on compliance with Judgment. 4. The briefs of April 13, 2007 and March 11, 2008, whereby the victims’ representatives (hereinafter “the representatives”) submitted their observations on the State’s reports (supra Having Seen clause 3). 5. The briefs of April 30, 2007 and April 11, 2008, whereby the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter the “Inter-American Commission” or the “Commission”) submitted its observations on the State’s reports (supra Having Seen clause 3). 6. The brief of July 16, 2008, whereby the representatives requested the Court to summon a hearing to monitor compliance with the Judgment delivered in the instant case. CONSIDERING: 1. That monitoring compliance with its decisions is a power inherent in the judicial functions of the Court. 2. That Nicaragua has been a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter the “American Convention” or the “Convention”) since September 25, 1979 and accepted the binding jurisdiction of the Court under Article 62 of the Convention on February 12, 1991. 3. That pursuant to the provisions of Article 67 of the American Convention, judgments rendered by the Court are to be fully and promptly complied with by the State. Furthermore, Article 68(1) of the American Convention sets forth 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.” For that purpose, the States must guarantee the implementation of the Court’s decisions at the domestic level.1 4. That the obligation to comply with the decisions of the Court conforms to a basic legal principle of the law of the international responsibility of the States, as supported by international case law, under which the States must comply with their international treaty obligations in good faith (pacta sunt servanda) and, as stated by the Court in prior cases and set forth in Article 27 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty.2 The treaty obligations of States Parties to fully comply with the decisions of the Court are binding on all State powers and organs.3 1 Cf. Case of Baena-Ricardo et al v. Panama. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003, Series C No. 104, para. 131; Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community v. Nicaragua. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Court of May 7, 2008, Considering clause 3; and Case of ClaudeReyes et al. v. Chile. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of June 10, 2008, Considering clause 3. 2 Cf. International Responsibility for the Promulgation and Enforcement of Laws in Violation of the Convention (Articles 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; Case of Raxcacó-Reyes v. Guatemala. Monitoring Compliance