3 obligations of States Parties bind all State branches and organs.4 5. The States Parties to the Convention must guarantee compliance with the provisions thereof and their effectiveness (effet utile) in their domestic legal systems. This principle applies not only in connection with the substantive provisions of human rights treaties (i.e. those addressing the protected rights), but also in connection with their procedural provisions, such as those concerning compliance with the Court’s decisions. These obligations are to be interpreted and enforced in such a manner that the protected guarantee is truly practical and effective, taking into account the special nature of human rights treaties.5 A) Regarding the Administration of Criminal Proceedings6 (Operative Paragraph Nine of the Judgment) 6. The State reported that “the Juzgado Segundo Penal del Circuito de Santander de Quilichao [Second Criminal Court of the Santander de Quilichao Circuit], by way of its judgment of June 9, 2008, found [3] police officers guilty for the murder of Mr. Germán Escué Zapata and sentenced them to 18 years in prison and other ancillary punishments. Later, these individuals exercised their right of appeal and on June 11, 2010 and by means of the Judgment of the Sala Tercera de Decisión Penal del Tribunal Superior de Popayán [Third Criminal Division of the Superior Court for the District of Popayán], the appeals court affirmed the July 9, 2008 Judgment while modifying the sentence imposed on [one of those convicted] from 18 to 16 years in prison. Also in the aforementioned ruling, the court overturned the conviction [of one of the defendants] for the crime of being a co-perpetrator in aggravated murder, while affirming the sentence imposed for the offense of false testimony against the second instance judgment. This led to [the defendants’] appeal before the Honorable Supreme Court of Justice.” Presently, two of the defendants are being held in jail. The State asserted that the representatives have made active and timely interventions in this criminal trial as civilian parties. Furthermore, the process is supported by a Special Agency of the Public Prosecutors’ Office set up to monitor its proper implementation. 7. The State also reported that “ an investigation was informally begun, at the request […] of the Public Prosecutor’s Office […], to determine the identity of Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of December 21, 2010, Considering Clause six. 4 Cf. Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 17, 1999 , Considering Clause three; Case of Valle Jaramillo v. Colombia, supra note 2, Considering Clause four, and Case of Castro Castro Prison v. Peru, supra note 3, Considering Clause six. 5 Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Competence. Judgement of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 24, 1999. Series C No. 54, para. 37; Case of Valle Jaramillo v. Colombia, supra note 2, Considering Clause five, and Case of Castro Castro Prison v. Peru, supra note 3, Considering Clause seven. 6 As far as determining the scope of the the provisions of paragraph 166 of the Judgment on merits, reparations and costs of July 4, 2007 is concerned, the Interpretation Judgment of May 5, 2008, pursuant to paragraph 15, as appropriate, states that: 15. With regard to the present case, the Court clarified that, under the reparation ordered, the term "results of [the] process" refers to final criminal court decisions that lead to the end of the proceeding and settle the main dispute, whether the decisions are acquitals or convictions. These results [should] be publicized so that Colombian society and the Paez Community can know the facts and, where appropriate, who was responsible. Also, family members and this Community, by means of their representatives, must be properly informed of the course of the judicial proceedings, particularly by the prosecutors.