acts that threaten international peace and security, or commits acts of aggression against another State. * 37. The Applicant asserts that the Respondent State conflates international relations law with the international human rights law and its protection mechanisms. She explains that subjecting to the jurisdiction of the Court does not constitute an infringement of State sovereignty, but rather the expression that sovereignty, since the Respondent State freely accepted the Court’s jurisdiction through legal means. The Applicant reminds the Respondent State that ratification of, and compliance with, international agreements is a manifestation of national sovereignty. This is evidenced, the Applicant submits, by the fact that Article 20 of the Respondent State’s Constitution confers on international agreements a higher status than domestic law. 38. The Applicant further asserts that the decisions of the Court are international judicial decisions that are binding on States and their three branches. According to the Applicant, this is notwithstanding the fact that the said decisions are not organically linked to the Respondent State’s judicial system and do not fit in the hierarchy of domestic courts’ decisions. *** 39. The Court recalls Article 26 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties9 which provides, “Every treaty in force is binding upon the parties to it and must be performed by them in good faith”.10 9 The Respondent State became a party to the Vienna Convention on 23 June 1971. 10 This is a well-established principle of law, both in public international law and in international human rights law. The Respondent State acceded to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties on June 23, 1971. 13