3 of Treaties of 1969, States cannot invoke their municipal laws to escape their preestablished international responsibility.3 6. That the States Parties to the Convention are required to guarantee compliance with the provisions thereof and their effects (effet utile) at the domesticlaw level. This principle is applicable with regard not only to the substantive provisions of human rights treaties (that is, those dealing with protected rights), but also to their procedural rules, such as those concerning compliance with the decisions of the Court. These obligations are to be interpreted and applied in a manner such that the protected guarantee is truly practical and effective, considering the special nature of human rights treaties.4 * ** 7. That, regarding the steps taken to complete the investigations into the facts of the instant case and publish the results of the proceedings (first Operative paragraph of the Judgment on reparations of November 26, 2002), the Court will discuss three specific issues, namely: the enforcement of the arrest warrants that are still outstanding; the publication of the results of the proceedings, and the reopening of the investigations that had been closed due to the statute of limitations, as well as the application of the concept of estoppel to one of the investigations initiated in the instant case. * ** 8. That, regarding the enforcement of the convictions, the State expressed that the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court “disallowed the demandas de casación [appeals for reversal]” filed by the defendants in the domestic criminal proceedings, with the judgment rendered by the Criminal Chamber of the Superior Court of the Judicial District of Bogotá on March 31, 2006 thus becoming final.5 Furthermore, it 3 Cf. International Responsibility for the Promulgation and Enforcement of Laws in Violation of the Convention (Arts. 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 Five Pensioners v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 24, 2009, Considering clause No. 6, and Case of Ivcher-Bronstein v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 24, 2009, Considering clause No. 5. 4 Cf. Case of Ivcher-Bronstein v. Peru. Competence. Judgment of September 24, 1999. Series C No. 54, para. 37; Case of the Five Pensioners, supra note 3, Considering clause No. 7, and Case of IvcherBronstein, supra note 3, Considering clause No. 6. 5 In accordance with Considering clause No. 11 of the Order of August 4, 2008, issued by this Tribunal at the monitoring compliance stage of the instant case, “the Criminal Chamber of the Superior Court of the Judicial District of Bogotá, in [its] judgment of March 31, 2006” decided to modify the operative portion of the appealed judgment to sentence Antonio Alonso-Martinez to 26 years and 9 months in prison as the co-perpetrator of the aggravated murders of Hernán Javier Cuarán-Muchavisoy, Julio Milciades Cerón-Gómez, Edebrades Norberto, William Hamilton-Cerón, Artemio Pantoja-Ordóñez, and NN/Moisés; to reverse the acquittal of and convict and sentence Jaime Alberto Peña-Casas, in his capacity as guarantor, to 24 years in prison for the murders of Hernán Javier Cuarán-Muchavisoy, Julio Milciades Cerón-Gómez, Edebrades Norberto, William Hamilton-Cerón, Artemio Pantoja-Ordóñez and NN/Moisés; to reverse the acquittal of and convict and sentence Elías Sandoval-Reyes to 22 years in prison as co-