4 case to which they are parties.” For such purpose, States are required to guarantee the implementation of the Court’s decisions at the domestic level.2 4. That, given the final and non-subject-to-appeal nature of the Court’s judgments, as established in Article 67 of the American Convention, said judgments are to be promptly and fully complied with by the State. 5. That the obligation to comply with the judgments of the Court conforms to a basic principle of the law of the international responsibility of the States, as supported by international case law, under which States are required to comply with the international treaty obligations in good faith (pacta sunt servanda) and, as previously held by the Court and provided for in Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969, States cannot invoke their domestic laws to escape their pre-established international responsibility.3 The treaty obligations of States Parties are binding on all State powers and organs.4 6. That the States Parties to the American Convention are required to guarantee compliance with the provisions thereof and secure their effects (effet utile) at the domestic law level. This principle applies not only in connection with the substantive provisions of human rights treaties (i.e. those dealing with the protected rights) but also in connection with procedural rules, such as the ones concerning compliance with the decisions of the Court. Such 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.5 7. That the States Parties to the Convention that have accepted the binding jurisdiction of the Court are under a duty to fulfill the obligations established by the Court. In this sense, Colombia must adopt all the necessary measures to comply effectively to what was established by the Court on the Judgment of September 12, 2005. This obligation includes the State’s duty to report 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 manner in which it is complying with each of the 2 Cf. Case of Baena-Ricardo et Series C No. 104, para. 131; Case Compliance with Judgment. Order of Considering clause 3, and Case of Compliance with Judgment. Order of Considering clause 3. al. v. Panama. Competence. Judgment of November of Chaparro-Álvarez and Lapo-Íñiguez v. Ecuador. the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of April Cantoral-Huamaní and García-Santa Cruz v. Peru. the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of April 28, 2003. Monitoring 29, 2009, Monitoring 28, 2009, 3 Cf. International Responsibility for the Promulgation and Enforcement of Law 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 Chaparro-Álvarez and Lapo-Íñiguez v. Ecuador, supra note 2, Considering clause 5, and Case of Cantoral-Huamaní and García-Santa Cruz v. Peru, supra note 2, Considering clause 5. 4 Cf. Case of Castillo-Petruzzi et al. v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment, November 17, 1999. Series C No. 59, Considering clause 3; Case of Suárez- Rosero v. Ecuador. Case of ChaparroÁlvarez and Lapo-Íñiguez v. Ecuador, supra note 2, Considering clause 5, and Case of Cantoral-Huamaní and García-Santa Cruz v. Peru supra note 2, Considering clause 5. 5 Cf. Case of Ivcher-Bronstein v. Peru. Competence. Judgment of September 24, 1999. Series C No. 54, para. 37; Case of Chaparro-Álvarez and Lapo-Íñiguez v. Ecuador, supra note 1, Considering clause 6, and Case of Cantoral-Huamaní and García-Santa Cruz v. Peru, supra note 2, Considering clause 6.