5. The States Parties to the Convention must ensure compliance with its provisions and their inherent effects (effet utile) within their respective domestic legal systems. This principle is applicable not only with regard to the substantive norms of human rights treaties (that is, those which contain provisions concerning the protected rights), but also with regard to procedural norms, such as those referring to compliance with the decisions of the Court. These obligations must be interpreted and applied so that the protected guarantee is truly practical and effective, bearing in mind the special nature of human rights treaties. 4 6. The States Parties to the Convention that have accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court have the duty to fulfill the obligations laid down by this Court. These obligations include the duty of the State to inform the Court of the measures adopted to comply with the orders of the Court in those decisions. Timely fulfillment of the State's obligation to inform the Court how it is complying with each of the measures ordered by the latter is essential to assess the status of compliance with the judgment as a whole. 5 7. Pursuant to the Order of the Court of July 1, 2011, (supra Having Seen clause 2), in this Order, the Court will assess compliance with Operative Paragraphs 11, 12, 14 and 16 of the Judgment. A. Obligation to provide free medical and psychological care to Wilson García Asto through its health care services, including the provision of medicines free of charge (eleventh operative paragraph of the judgment) Arguments of the parties and the Commission 8. The State, in its report of February 1, 2012, indicated that on January 6, 2012, it had requested the Ministry of Health to provide information on the measures adopted or underway, in order to comply with the reparations that were ordered, “and a response is pending” from the Ministry. The State reported, among other things, that “in the case of Mr. Wilson García Asto, the State provided the Court with a document showing his registration in the ESSALUD INSURANCE [...], being that registration in the [Integral Health System] (SIS for its acronym in Spanish) was not necessary because he had that insurance.” 9. With regard to the aforementioned, the representatives considered that “the obligation to comply with the Judgment is a results based obligation, not one based on actions or procedures, as the State pretends, reason for which [... ] the State has not complied with the matters pending compliance with the [J]udgment in the monitoring of compliance.” On the other hand, it reported on the visit that Mr. Garcia Asto Castañeda Gutman V. México. Monitoring of Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of August 28, 2013, Considering clause four. 4 Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein V. Peru. Competence. Judgment of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 24, 1999. Series C No. 54, para. 37, and Case of Castañeda Gutman V. México. Monitoring of Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of August 28, 2013, Considering clause five. 5 Cf. Case of Barrios Altos V. Peru. Monitoring of Compliance with the Judgment. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of September 22, 2005, Considering clause 7, and Case of Abrill Alosilla et al. V. Peru. Monitoring of Compliance with the Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 22, 2013, Considering clause 6. 3