3 Court. Moreover, pursuant to Article 68(1) of the American Convention, "[t]he States Parties to the Convention undertake to comply with the judgment of the Court in any case to which they are parties."2 For such purpose, the States are required to guarantee that the Court’s orders are implemented in decisions made at the domestic level.3 4. That the obligation to comply with the Court’s judgments conforms to a basic principle of the law on the international responsibility of States, as supported by international case law, under which States are required to comply with their international treaty obligations in good faith (pacta sunt servanda).4 The States Parties’ Convention-based obligations to comply promptly with the decisions of the Court are binding on all branches and organs of State.5 5. That the States Parties to the Convention are required to guarantee compliance with the provisions thereof and their effects (effet utile) within their own domestic laws. This principle is applicable not only to the substantive provisions of human rights treaties (i.e. those dealing with protected rights) but also to procedural rules, such as those concerning compliance with the decisions of the Court. These obligations are to be interpreted and enforced in a manner such that the protected guarantee is truly practical and effective, bearing in mind the special nature of human rights treaties.6 * * * 6. That in the private hearing, the State discussed reinstating María Elena Loayza Tamayo into the educational service and supplied information on actions it had undertaken to comply with this item of the judgment on reparations (supra Having seen nos. 2 and 5). 7. That María Elena Loayza Tamayo, victim in the instant case, stated that at the time she was seized, she had been working in three different educational insitutions: Centro Educativo 2057 "José Gabriel Condorcanqui;" the Escuela Nacional de Arte Dramático, where she carried a 24-hour teaching load, and the San Martín de Porres University with a 20-hour load. Mrs. Loayza Tamayo reported that she had been 2 Cfr. Case of Baena-Ricardo et al. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, par. 60; Case of Gómez Palomino. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of October 18, 2007, Considering clause 7; Case of Blake. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 27, 2007, Considering clause 3. 3 Cfr. Case of Baena-Ricardo et al. Competence, supra note 2, par. 131. 4 Cfr. 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, par. 35; Case of García Asto and Ramírez Rojas. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 12, 2007, Considering clause 6; Case of Molina Theissen. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 10, 2007, Considering clause 3. 5 Cfr. Case of Baena-Ricardo et al. Competence, supra note 2, par. 60; Case of Gómez Palomino. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment, supra note 2, Considering clause 7; Case of Blake. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment, supra note 2, Considering clause 4. 6 Cfr. Case of Ivcher Bronstein. Competence. Judgment of September 24, 1999. Series C No. 54, par. 37; Case of Blake. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment, supra note 2, Considering clause 5; and Case of Gómez Palomino. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment, supra note 2, Considering clause 4.