8 2 international responsibility already set forth by arguing domestic reasons. The treaty obligations of the States Party are binding for all the branches and bodies of the State. 6. The States Party to the Convention must ensure compliance with the treaty provisions and their effective application (effet utile) in their respective domestic legal systems. This principle applies not only to substantive provisions of the human rights treaties (that is, those containing provisions regarding the rights protected), but also with respect to the procedural provisions, such as those pertaining to compliance with the decisions of the Court. These obligations must be interpreted and applied in a manner that ensures that the right protected is truly practical and 3 effective, taking into account the special nature of human rights treaties. 7. The States Party to the Convention that have accepted the adjudicatory jurisdiction of the Court have the duty to obey the obligations established by the Court. In this regard, the State must report on steps taken to comply with the orders issued by the Court in said rulings. Timely observance of the obligation of the State to inform the Court of how it is complying with each of the points ordered by the Court is fundamental to assess overall compliance by the State with the Judgment. 8. According to the information forwarded to the Court by the State (supra Having Seen 17) “Mr. Cesti Hurtado’s pending cases ha[d] been set aside.” The representatives of the victim, in turn (supra Having Seen 7, 15 and 18), and the Commission (supra Having Seen 7) asserted that there are still ongoing criminal proceedings against Mr. Cesti Hurtado, regarding the same facts as the military proceeding that was annulled by the September 29, 1999 judgment of the Court (supra Having Seen 1). 9. According to the information forwarded by the representatives of the victim (supra Having Seen 7 and 15), the State is investigating the facts in connection with the instant case, but in said proceedings Mr. Cesti Hurtado is not considered a victim but rather a witness (supra Having Seen 7, 15 and 18). 10. While overseeing comprehensive compliance with the Judgments on the merits and reparations issued in the instant case, and after analyzing the information supplied by the State (supra Having Seen 10), by the representatives of the victim (supra Having Seen 14 and 15), and by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (supra Having Seen 14), this Court has found that the State paid US$ 65,000.00 (sixty-five thousand United States dollars) that were due according to the 2 See Case of Baena-Ricardo et al., supra note 1, para. 128; Case of Barrios Altos. Compliance with Judgment. November 28, 2003 Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Whereas six; and Case of Bámaca-Velásquez. Compliance with Judgment of November 27, 2003, Whereas five. 3 See Matters of: Liliana Ortega et al., Luisiana Ríos et al., Luis Uzcátegui, Marta Colomina and Liliana Velásquez. Provisional Measures. May 4, 2004 Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Whereas twelve; Case of Baena-Ricardo et al.. Competence, supra note 1, para. 66; Case of the Constitutional Court. Competence. September 24, 1999 Judgment. Series C No. 55, para. 36; and Case of Ivcher-Bronstein. Competence. September 24, 1999 Judgment. Series C No. 54, para. 37. Also see, inter alia, Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute”. September 2, 2004 Judgment. Series C No. 112, para. 205; Case of the Gómez-Paquiyauri Brothers. July 8, 2004 Judgment. Series C No. 110, paras. 150 and 151; and Case of Bulacio. September 18, 2003 Judgment. Series C No. 100, para. 142. Likewise, see Klass and others v. Germany, (Merits) Judgment of 6 September 1978, ECHR, Series A no. 28, para. 34; and Permanent Court of Arbitration, Dutch-Portuguese Boundaries on the Island of Timor, Arbitral Award of June 25, 1914.