4 6. That 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 with regard not only to the substantive norms of human rights treaties (that is, those that include stipulations on the protected rights), but also to the procedural norms, such as those referring to compliance with the decisions of the Court. These obligations shall be interpreted and applied so that the guarantee protected is truly practical and effective, bearing in mind the special nature of human rights treaties.3 7. That the States Parties to the Convention that have acknowledged the adjudicatory jurisdiction of the Court are obliged to comply with the obligations established by the Tribunal. This obligation includes the State’s duty to inform the Court of the measures adopted to comply with that ordered by the Tribunal in said decisions. The timely observance of the State’s obligation to inform the Tribunal of how it is complying with each of the points ordered by the latter is fundamental for the evaluation of the status of compliance of the Judgment in its totality.4 * * * 8. That in relation to the obligation to allow Mr. Humberto Antonio Palamara Iribarne to publish his book, as well as return all the material of which he was deprived, the State informed that “it offered the claimant a new printing of the copies of the book seized, which was accepted by Mr. Humberto Palamara��s legal representative […] on November 16, 2006,” and that “[s]aid printing was carried out in the Printing Press of the Chilean Army and the delivery of the 1,000 copies and the book’s electronic version was made directly [to the claimant] on Wednesday December 27, 2006.” 9. That the representatives informed that on December 27, 2006, “the delivery of the 1,000 copies of the books printed in the Printing Press of the Chilean Army and the electronic version of the book” took place in the Human Rights Office of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Therefore, they consider “that the obligation to allow Mr. Palamara Iribarne to publish his book […], as well as the return of the copies pursuant to the operative paragraph of the judgment was complied with by the State, even when said compliance has not respected the six-month term established by the Court.” 10. That in this regard the Inter-American Commission indicated that said obligation “was fulfilled by the State, even when said compliance has not respected the six-month term established by the Court;” and “observe[d] with satisfaction that the State adopted specific measures to fully comply with the state’s obligation.” * * * 3 Cfr. Case of Ivcher Bronstein. Competence. Judgment of September 24, 1999, para. 37; Case of Gómez Palomino. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court on Human Rights of October 18, 2007, Considering Clause number four; and Case of Molina Theissen. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment, supra note 1, Considering Clause number four. 4 Cfr. Case of Barrios Altos. Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 22, 2005, Considering Clause number seven; Case of Gómez Palomino. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment, supra note 3, Considering Clause number five; and Case of García Asto and Ramírez Rojas. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment, supra note 1, Considering Clause number eight.