3 3. That Article 68(1) of the American Convention sets forth that: “The States Parties to the Convention undertake to comply with the judgment of the Court in any case to which they are parties.”1 For that purpose, the States must ensure the implementation within their jurisdictions of the orders issued by the Court in its decisions. 4. That the obligation to comply with the decisions of the Court is a basic principle of law regarding the international responsibility of the State, which is supported by international jurisprudence, according to which the States must comply with their international conventional obligations in good faith (pacta sunt servanda) and that, as this Court has pointed out and pursuant to article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969, the states may not, due to reasons of internal order, avoid the international responsibility which has already been established. The conventional obligations of the States Parties bind all powers and organs of the State.2 5. That the States Parties to the Convention must guarantee the compliance with conventional provisions and their own effects (effet utile) at internal level. This principle applies not only with regard to the substantive provisions of the human rights treaties (that is to say, those which express provisions regarding the protected rights,) but also with regard to the procedural rules, such as those referring to the compliance with the decisions of the Court. These obligations must be interpreted and applied so that the protected guarantee is truly practical and efficient, taking into account the special nature of the human rights treaties.3 * * * 6. That, with regard to the resolution of the Court as stated in operative paragraph eight, referring to the obligation of the Sate to carry on any acts that may be necessary to identify, prosecute, and as the case may be, punish all the perpetrators and instigators for the violations committed against the victims and also referring to the obligation to remove all obstacles and solve all questions of fact and of law that allow impunity to remain in the instant case, the State, in its first report has not provided any information. Subsequently, in its report submitted on October 23, 2007, the State stated the acts that had been carried out in order to criminally prosecute the perpetrators and instigators of the violations “committed in detriment of the minor victims” (original in block capitals, bold and underlined) Marco Antonio Servellón-García and Rony Alexis BetancourthVásquez. The acts reported are: a) criminal proceedings had been commenced against Víctor Hugo Vivas-Lozano, within which, the Public Prosecution submitted its conclusions 1 Cf. Case of Baena-Ricardo et al. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 60; Case of Palamara-Iribarne v. Chile. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of November 30, 2007, Having Seen Clause 3; and Case of the Girls Yean and Bosico V. República Dominicana. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order or the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 28, 2007, Having Seen Clause 4. 2 Cf. International Responsibility for the issuance and enforcement of laws that violate 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 the Plan de Sánchez Massacre v. Guatemala. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 28, 2007, Having Seen Clause 3; and Case of Palamara-Iribarne v. Chile, supra note 1, Having Seen Clause 5. 3 Cf. Case of Ivcher-Bronstein. Competence. Judgment of September 24, 1999. Series C No. 54, para. 37; Case of the Plan de Sánchez Massacre v. Guatemala, supra note 2, Having Seen Clause 4; and Case of Palamara-Iribarne v. Chile, supra not1 1, Having Seen Clause 6.