3 5. The States Parties to the Convention must ensure compliance with its provisions and their effectiveness (effet utile) within their respective domestic legal systems. This principle applies not only in connection with the substantive provisions of human rights treaties (i.e. those dealing with provisions on protected rights) but also in connection with procedural norms, such as those concerning compliance with the Court’s decisions. These obligations are intended to be interpreted and enforced in such a manner that the protected guarantee is truly practical and effective, bearing in mind the special nature of human rights treaties.4 * * * 6. Regarding the obligation to investigate the events that led to the violations identified in the Judgment so as to identify and punish those responsible (operative paragraph seven of the Judgment), the State did not submit any information. 7. The Court observes that on March 30, 2005, Mr. Ivcher Bronstein submitted a request for provisional measures to protect his life and that of his next of kin “as well as [to] protect [his] personal security and […] other protected rights, which are seriously threatened” by the lack of investigation into the events of the instant case, among other claims. Between 2005 and 2006, the parties presented different observations regarding this request. The Court observes that since March 2006 there have been no specific claims referring to the alleged urgent and extremely serious events or the need to prevent irreparable damage to persons included in said request. Without prejudice to the above, the relevant information has been taken into account as part of monitoring compliance with the instant case. 8. In 2010, representatives stated, “throughout all these years the State […] has refused to investigate and punish the individuals involved in the violation of Mr. Ivcher’s fundamental rights, which was perpetrated by the State.” In addition, the representatives reported that, “an action initiated by [Messrs.] Winter Zuzunaga is pending.” “This action, brought before a Peruvian Arbitration Court, seeks to regain control of the Compañía Latinoamericana de Radiodifusión (CLRSA)”. They also stated, “there are other proceedings pending [and] they [will] inform the Court thereof.” 9. For its part, the Commission “worryingly observ[ed] that the State has not provided any information regarding compliance with this obligation [since] the lack of [this] information and the delay in processing proceedings creates a real risk of coming to the end of the prescriptive period.” Based on the foregoing, the Commission “request[ed] the Court to request that the State provide specific and up-to-date information on the steps taken in the criminal proceedings on a domestic level.” 10. In this regard, the Court reiterates that as indicated continuously in its jurisprudence, pursuant to Article 1(1) of the American Convention, the State has the duty to avoid and combat impunity, which has been defined by the Court as “the total lack of investigation, prosecution, capture, trial and conviction of those responsible for violations of the human rights protected by the American Convention.”5 In addition, the Court has 4 Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Competence. Judgment of September 24, 1999. Series C No. 54, para. 37; Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama, supra note 1, Considering Clause six, and Case of Vargas Areco v. Paraguay, supra note 1, Considering Clause five. 5 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of March 8, 1998. Series C No. 37, para. 173; Case of El Amparo v. Venezuela. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 4, 2010, Considering Clause eighteen, and Case of Heliodoro