3 3. Pursuant to Article 68(1) of the American Convention, “The States Parties to the Convention undertake to comply with the judgment of the Court in any case to which they are parties.” Thus, States must ensure that the decisions of the Court are implemented domestically.1 4. Given that in accordance with Article 67 of the American Convention, the Court’s judgments are final and not subject to appeal, the State must fully and promptly comply with the judgments delivered by the Court. 5. The obligation to comply with the Court’s judgments conforms to a basic principle of International Law, supported by international jurisprudence, according to which States must comply with their 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 preestablished international responsibility.2 State Parties’ obligations under the Convention bind all State branches and organs.3 6. States Parties to the Convention must guarantee compliance with its provisions and their effects (effet utile) in their domestic legal orders. This principle applies not only in connection with the substantive provisions of human rights treaties (i.e. those on the rights protected), but also in connection with procedural rules, such as those concerning compliance with the decisions of the Court. These obligations are to be interpreted and implemented in such a way that the protected guarantee is truly useful and effective, considering the special nature of human rights treaties.4 7. States Parties to the Convention that have accepted the Court's binding jurisdiction have a duty to comply with the obligations established by the Tribunal. This includes the obligation to inform the Court on the measures adopted in order to comply with its decisions. The State's timely observance of the obligation to indicate how it is complying with each of the Court's orders is fundamental for evaluating its compliance with the Judgment as a whole.5 8. The Judgments issued in the cases of Boyce et al v. Barbados and DaCosta Cadogan v. Barbados both ordered, as reparations to the victims in those cases, the adoption of 1 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo v. Panama. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 60; and Case of the Yean and Bosico Girls v. Dominican Republic. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of October 10, 2011, Considering clause four. 2 Cf. International Responsibility for the Promulgation and Enforcement of Laws 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; and Case of the Yean and Bosico Girls v. Dominican Republic. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment, supra note 1, Considering clause five. 3 Cf. Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of November 17, 1999, Considering clause three; and Case of the Yean and Bosico Girls v. Dominican Republic. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment, supra note 1, Considering clause five. 4 Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Competence. Judgment of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 24, 1999, para. 37; and Case of the Yean and Bosico Girls v. Dominican Republic. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment, supra note 1, Considering clause six. 5 Cf. Case of "Five Pensioners” v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 17, 2004, Considering clause five; and Case of the “Las Dos Erres” Massacre v. Guatemala. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 06, 2011, Considering clause six.