5 3. That, 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”. For such purpose, the States are required to guarantee the implementation of the Court’s decisions at the domestic level.2 4. That by virtue of the final and non-appealable nature of the Judgments of the Court, as established in Article 67 of the American Convention, they must be promptly complied with by the State in their entirety. 5. That the obligation to comply with the rulings of the Court conforms to a basic principle of the law on the international responsibility of States, backed by international jurisprudence, under which States are required to fulfill 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, for reasons of domestic order, escape from their pre-established international responsibility. The treaty obligations of States Parties are binding on all the States’ powers and organs.3 6. That the States Parties to the Convention must guarantee the compliance with provisions under the convention and their own effects (effet utile) at the internal level. This principle applies not only with regard to the substantive provisions of the human rights treaties (that is to say, those which express provisions regarding the protected rights,) but also with regard to the procedural rules, such as those referring to the compliance with the decisions of the Court. These obligations must be interpreted and applied so that the protected guarantee is truly practical and efficient, taking into account the special nature of the human rights treaties.4 7. That the States Parties to the Convention that have acknowledged the adjudicatory jurisdiction of the Court are obliged to comply with the obligations established by the Tribunal. This obligation includes the State’s duty to inform the Court of the measures adopted to comply with that ordered by the Tribunal in said decisions. The timely observance of the State’s obligation to inform the Tribunal of how it is complying with each of the points ordered by the latter is fundamental for the evaluation of the status of compliance of the Judgment in its totality.5 2 Cf. ICHR. Case of Baena-Ricardo et al v. Panama. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 131; ICHR. Case of López Álvarez v. Honduras. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, February 6, 2008, seventh Considering paragraph; and ICRH. Case of Servellón García et al. v. Honduras. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, January 29, 2008, third Considering paragraph. 3 Cf. ICHR. International responsibility for the issuing and application of laws that violate the Convention (Articles 1 and 2, American Convention on Human Rights). Consultative Opinion OC-14/94, December 9, 1994. Series A, No. 14, paragraph 35; ICHR. Case of Cantoral Benavides v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment, Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, February 7, 2008, fifth Considering paragraph; and ICHR. Case of López Álvarez v. Honduras. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment, supra note 2, eighth Considering paragraph. 4 Cf. ICHR. Case of Ivcher Bronstein. Competence. Judgment, Septemeber 24, 1999. Series C, No. 54, paragraph 37; ICHR. Case of Cantoral Benavides v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment, supra note 3, ninth Considering paragraph; and ICHR. Case of López Álvarez v. Honduras. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment, supra note 2, ninth Considering paragraph. 5 Cf. ICHR. Case of Barrios Altos v. Peru. Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 22, 2005, seventh Considering paragraph; ICHR. Case of Cantoral Benavides v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment, supra note 3, nineteenth Considering