3 6. That the States Parties to the Convention must guarantee compliance with the provisions thereof and their effects (effet utile) at the domestic-law level. This principle applies not only in connection with the substantive provisions of human rights treaties (in other words, those addressing the protected rights), but also in connection with their procedural provisions, such as those concerning compliance with the Court’s decisions. These obligations are to be interpreted and enforced in a manner such that the protected guarantee is truly practical and effective, considering the special nature of human rights treaties.4 7. That those States Parties to the American Convention that have accepted the binding jurisdiction of the Court are under a duty to comply with the obligations imposed by the Court. Such obligation includes the State’s duty to report to the Court on the measures taken to comply with the Court’s orders contained in the aforementioned Judgment. Timely fulfillment of the State’s obligation to report to the Court on how it is complying with each of the aspects ordered by the latter is essential to assess the status of compliance in a given case.5 * * * 8. That, as regards the obligation to publish certain paragraphs of the Judgment in the Official Gazette and in another daily newspaper with widespread circulation set in the seventh operative paragraph thereof, the State reported that “paragraphs 77 to 133, without the footnotes[,] and the operative portion of the [J]udgment were published in the Official Gazette of the Federation on January 2, 2009,” and that “on January 14, 2009, the relevant parts of the [J]udgment were featured on page 7 of the Excélsior newspaper.” The State provided a copy of both publications. 9. That the representatives acknowledged “compliance with the obligations contained in the [seventh] operative paragraph of the Judgment.” 10. That the Commission positively assessed the information submitted by the State on the publications. 11. That, based on the information submitted by the parties, the Tribunal finds that the State has complied with its obligation to publish in the Official Gazette and in another daily newspaper with widespread circulation the relevant portions of the Judgment within a period of six months. * * * 12. That, as regards the obligation to reimburse the victim for the costs and expenses as ordered in the eighth operative paragraph of the Judgment, the State 4 Cf. Case of Ivcher-Bronstein v. Peru. Competence. Judgment of September 24, 1999. Series C No. 54, para. 37; Case of Cantoral-Huamaní and García-Santa Cruz V. Peru, supra note 1, Considering clause No. 6, and Case of Chaparro-Álvarez and Lapo-Íñiguez V. Ecuador, supra note 1, Considering clause No. 6. 5 Cf. Case of Barrios Altos v. Peru. Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 22, 2005, Considering clause No. 7; Case of Cantoral-Huamaní and GarcíaSanta Cruz V. Peru, supra note 1, Considering clause No. 7, and Case of the Miguel Castro-Castro Prison V. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of April 28, 2009, Considering clause No. 7.