2. Paraguay is a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter "the American Convention") since August 24, 1989 and acknowledged the jurisdiction of the Court on March 26, 1993. 3. In accordance with the provisions of Article 67 of the American Convention, the State should fully comply with the Court's Judgments.Furthermore, Article 68(1) of the American Convention stipulates that "the State Parties to the Convention undertake to comply with the decision of the Court in any case to which they are parties." To this end, States should ensure the domestic implementation of the provisions set forth in the Court's rulings.2 4. The obligation to comply with the Tribunal's rulings conforms to a basic principle of international law, supported by international jurisprudence, under which States must abide by their international treaty obligations in good faith (pacta sunt servanda); and, as set forth by this Court and in Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969, States cannot, for domestic reasons, ignore their pre-established international responsibility.3 The treaty obligations of State Parties are binding on all branches and bodies of the State.4 5. The States Parties to the Convention must ensure compliance with the treaty provisions and their effects (effet utile) in terms of their domestic laws.This principle applies not only to the substantive provisions of human rights treaties (i.e., those addressing protected rights), but also to procedural provisions, such as those concerning compliance with the Court’s decisions.These obligations should 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.5 a) Regarding operative paragraph seven of the Judgment 6. Regarding the obligation to undertake, in full compliance with judicial guarantees and within a reasonable time period, all actions necessary to identify, prosecute and punish, if applicable, all responsible for the violations committed in the present case (operative paragraph nine of the Judgment), the State raised during the written procedure "[its] inability to effectively comply with [this point] of the Judgment" based on two arguments: a) the alleged violation of constitutional rights and guarantees in criminal matters by reopening investigations into other perpetrators, and b) the alleged impossibility to reopen the case for further investigations into torture, considering the State that it would be 2 Cf.Case of Baena Ricardo et al.. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 60; Case of Tristán Donoso v. Panama. Monitoring compliance with Judgment.Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 1, 2010, Considering Clause three, and Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Monitoring compliance with Judgment.Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of August 27, 2010, Considering Clause three. 3 Cf. International responsibility the issuance and application of laws that violate the Convention (Arts.1 and 2 American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion AO-14/94 of December 9, 1994. Series A No. 14, para. 35; Case of Tristán Donoso, supra note 2, Considering Clause five, and Case of Ivcher Bronstein, supra note 2, Considering Clause four. 4 Cf. CaseCastillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment Order of the Court of November 17, 1999.Series C No. 59, Considering Clause three; Case of Tristán Donoso,supranote 2, Considering Clause five, andCase of Ivcher Bronstein,supranote 2, Considering Clause four. Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Competence. Judgment of September 24, 1999. Series C No. 54, para. 37; Case of Tristán Donoso,supranote 2, Considering Clause six, andCase of De la Cruz Flores v.Peru. Monitoring compliance with Judgment.Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 1, 2010, Considering Clause six.