of the Judgment, consisting of four components, namely: identification and characterization; location or direct contact; return or relocation, and monitoring, and this has allowed the State to target the offer of existing local, departmental and national programs by giving priority to the beneficiaries of the Judgment. The State also referred to actions taken in compliance with Judgment T367 (2010) of the Constitutional Court in favor of the victims of displacement in the Ituango massacres, in particular strategies for communicating with them and for summoning them through local, regional and national radio and television media, which had permitted the inclusion of part of the population that had not appeared previously as a beneficiary of these proceedings (8 beneficiaries of the Judgment in the municipalities of Bello, Valdivia, Medellín and Yarumal). Furthermore, currently there are a total of 746 beneficiaries, of whom 264 were included without having identification data, the latter based on compliance with the constitutional ruling. In order to give coherence to the action strategy established in Law Ley 1448 of 2011 and its decrees, the State undertook to ensure that the process is in keeping with the law, guaranteeing its continuity in order to make reparation to the victims of the case. 26. The Court takes note that the State entity, the Social Action Agency, has implemented the “System of Attention to Displaced Population, the JUNTOS National Network, and the Retornar es Vivir strategy” and has focused its efforts on identifying and characterizing the displaced population. 27. However, the Court considers it inappropriate that the representatives of the victims have had to file applications for constitutional protection (amparo) at the domestic level in order to obtain compliance with this measure of reparation. The obligation to comply with the Court’s decisions corresponds to a basic principle of the law on the international responsibility of the State, supported by international case law (pacta sunt servanda) and, as this Court has indicated and as established in Article 27 of the 1969 Vienna 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.”20 The treaty obligations of the States Parties are binding for all the powers and organs of the State;21 in other words, all the powers of the State (the Executive, the Legislature, the Judiciary, or other branches of the public powers) and other public or State authorities, at any level, have the duty to comply in good faith with international law.22 Consequently, and particularly considering the time that has elapsed since the Judgment was handed down and the needs of the beneficiaries of this measure of reparation, the State should have adopted the required measures, and the adaptations and interpretations of the law to comply effectively with what the Court ordered, without the need for administrative obstacles, and without the need to resort to the courts.                                                              20 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 Barrios Altos v. Peru. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 7, 2012, fourth considering paragraph. This has been included in “Resolution adopted by the General Assembly [on the report of the Sixth Committee (A/56/589 and Corr.1] 56/83, Responsibility of States for internationally wrongful acts, at its 85th plenary meeting on 12 December 2001. Official records of the General Assembly, Fifty-sixth Session, Supplement No. 10 and corrigendum (A/56/10 and Corr.1 and 2). 21 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, fourth considering paragraph, and Case of Barrios Altos v. Peru. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 7, 2012, fourth considering paragraph. 22 Cf. Case of Gelman v. Uruguay. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of March 20, 2013, fifty-ninth considering paragraph, and 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. 11