5. The States Parties to the Convention must ensure compliance with its conventional provisions and their inherent effects (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 the protected rights) but also in connection with procedural rules, such as the ones concerning compliance with the decisions of the Court. Such obligations are intended to be interpreted and enforced in a manner such that the protected guarantee is truly practical and effective, taking into account the special nature of human rights 3 treaties . 6. Those States Parties to the American Convention that have accepted the contentious jurisdiction of the Court are under a duty to fulfill the obligations set by the Tribunal. This obligation includes the State’s duty to report on the measures adopted to comply with such decisions of the Court. Timely fulfillment of the State’s obligation to report to the Court on the exact manner in which it is complying with each of the aspects ordered by the latter is essential to evaluate the whole status of compliance in this case4. I. 7. Duty to investigate the facts that gave rise to the violations declared in the judgment, and duty to initiate the relevant disciplinary, administrative or criminal actions under domestic law (eighth and ninth operative paragraphs of the judgment) In its report of May 4, 2012, the State pointed out that: [o]n August 2, 2011, the Criminal Court of First Instance for Criminal Matters, DrugTrafficking, and Environmental Crimes concluded that accused persons Reyes Colin Gualip, Manuel Pop Sun, Daniel Martínez Méndez and Carlos Antonio Carías López: a) were found to be the perpetrators of the crime of murder committed against the life and integrity of the inhabitants of Las Dos Erres; for which they were sentenced to [...] 6,030 years’ incommutable imprisonment; b) were found to be the perpetrators of crimes against humanity, committed against the security of the State; for which they were sentenced to 30 years’ incommutable imprisonment; c) that Carlos Antonio Carías Lopez is responsible as perpetrator of the crime of aggravated theft, committed against the property of the inhabitants of community of Las Dos Erres, for which he was sentenced to six years' incommutable imprisonment; and d) the Office of the Public Prosecutor was ordered to continue investigating the other persons that might have participated in those events. The State also informed that the appeals filed against the decision of August 2, 2011, were declared inadmissible. 8. Moreover, the State indicated that “the Court of High-Risk First B […] decided “to sentence Mr. Pedro Pimentel Rios “to a total of 6,060 years” in prison for the crime of “murder committed against the life of 201 inhabitants of Las Dos Erres community" 3 Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Competence. Judgment of September 24 1999. Series C N° 54, para. 37, and Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment, fourth considering paragraph. 4 Cf. Case of Barrios Altos v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Court of September 22, 2005, Considering paragraph seven and Case of Baena Ricardo et al v. Panama. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment, seventh considering paragraph. 3