3 Convention on the Law of Treaties, a party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty.3 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 not only with regard to the substantive norms of human rights treaties (that is, those which contain provisions concerning the protected rights), but also with regard to procedural norms, such as those referring to compliance with the decisions of the Court. These obligations shall be interpreted and applied so that the protected guarantee is truly practical and effective, bearing in mind the special nature of human rights treaties.4 7. That the Court considers that the hearing held to monitor the points pending compliance in this case, characterized by the good will and spirit of cooperation of the parties, was extremely useful. * * * 8. That, regarding the granting of the traditional lands to the members of the Yakye Axa Indigenous Community (hereinafter “the Community”) (sixth operative paragraph of the Judgment), the State advised, inter alia, that the Paraguayan Institute for Indigenous People (hereinafter “INDI”), “by Resolution No. 1,178/2007 of September 10, 2007, [decided] to request the expropriation of the property identified as Lots 15,179, 15,180 and 15,181 with a total surface area of 15,963 hectares, 1,531 square meters […].” It also indicated that the Ninth Civil and Commercial Court of First Instance of Asuncion had granted preventive measures prohibiting any work de facto and de jure to be done on the property claimed by the Community, “in order to prevent […] possible alterations of the Community’s traditional or ancestral habitat.” 9. That the representatives indicated that “the State’s decision to initiate an expropriation procedure could resolve the most important aspect of this case […]. Nevertheless, there is no draft expropriation law […] before Congress, even though only five months remain of the time established by the Court […] to comply with this point. [… N]ot even a preliminary draft of the law has been drawn up.” The INDI Resolution mentioned by the State “is merely of a declaratory nature.” In addition, they indicated that “the area of 15,963 hectares mentioned in INDI Resolution No. 1,1[7]8/2007 does not correspond to the area of the lands claimed by the Community,” and that it remained to be seen “whether the State had registered” the measures of protection preventing any work to be done on the land claimed. 10. That the Commission stated that it hoped that, within the “more than reasonable [period] of three years granted by the Court,” the State would comply with the granting of the land to the members of the Community. Also, since “the life 3 Cf. International Responsibility for the Promulgation and Enforcement of Laws in violation of the Convention (Arts. 1 and 2 American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-14/94 of December 9, 1994. Series A No. 14, para. 35; García Asto and Ramírez Rojas v. Peru. Compliance with judgment, supra note 2, sixth considering paragraph, and Molina Theissen v. Guatemala. Compliance with judgment, supra note 2, third considering paragraph. 4 Cf. Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Competence Judgment of September 24, 1999. Series C No. 54, para. 37; Gómez Palomino v. Peru. Compliance with judgment. Order of the Court of October 18, 2007, fourth considering paragraph, and García Asto and Ramírez Rojas v. Peru. Compliance with judgment, supra note 2, seventh considering paragraph.