3 6. That the States Parties to the Convention must guarantee compliance with its provisions and its effects (effet utile) within their own domestic laws. This principle applies not only to the substantive provisions of human rights treaties (in other words, the clauses on the protected rights), but also to the procedural provisions, such as the one concerning compliance with the Court’s judgments. These obligations must be interpreted and applied in such a way that the protected guarantee is truly practical and effective, given the special nature of international human rights treaties.4 7. That every State Party to the Convention having recognized the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court has the duty to fulfill the obligations imposed by the Court. This duty includes the obligation of the State to report to the Court on the measures adopted to comply with the decisions of the Court. Timely fulfillment of the State’s obligation to report to the Court on the exact manner in which it is complying with each of the aspects ordered by the latter is essential to evaluate the status of compliance with the Judgment as a whole.5 8. That the Court appreciates the significant efficacy of the hearing held for monitoring compliance with the Judgment in the instant case. * * * 9. That as regards to the only aspect pending compliance related to the obligation of the State to investigate the events, identify and, eventually, punish those responsible for the human rights violations declared by the Court, and to adopt the domestic law provisions necessary to guarantee compliance with this obligation (Operative Paragraph No. 8 of the Judgment on the merits and Operative Paragraph No. 8 of the Judgment on reparations), the State mentioned a series of procedures, that had no positive results, carried out in the 90s and that have already been appraised by the Court during the merits stage in the instant case. 10. That as to the current situation, the State informed that the “Presidential Commission on Human Rights requested the Attorney General’s Office to resume the investigation in the instant case in order to establish the criminal responsibility of those who are found guilty in relation to the events" and that in response to the request, the Attorney General's Office restated that on December 3, 2008, "in accordance with the principle against double jeopardy, no criminal action may be brought against accused individuals who have already been acquitted given that new criminal proceedings cannot be initiated against them”. The State added that criminal proceedings were “carried out in accordance with effective legislation” and that the state “guaranteed due process of law and all legal remedies available in the domestic jurisdiction”. Lastly, the State mentioned that, notwithstanding the acquittal of the three accused individuals and the dismissal of the case December 9, 1994. Series A No. 14, para. 35; Case of Vargas-Areco v. Paraguay, supra note 2, Considering clause No. 5; and Case of Claude Reyes v. Chile, supra note 2, Considering clause No. 5. 4 Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Perú. Competence. Judgment of September 24, 1999. Series C No. 54, para. 37; Case of Vargas-Areco v. Paraguay, supra note 2, Considering clause No. 6; and Case of Claude Reyes v. Chile, supra note 2, Considering clause No. 6. 5 Cf. Case of Barrios Altos v. Perú. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Court of September 22, 2005, Considering clause No. 7; Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panamá. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Court of October 30, 2008, Considering clause No. 7; and Caso Vargas Areco v. Paraguay, supra note 2, Considering clause No. 7.