3 they are parties.” For such purpose, the States are required to guarantee that the Court’s orders are implemented in decisions made at the domestic level.2 4. That, because the judgments of the Court are final and not subject to appeal, as established in Article 67 of the American Convention, the State is required to promptly and fully comply therewith. 5. 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) 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 invoke their internal laws for failure to honor their preestablished international responsibility.3 The States Parties obligations under the Convention bind all branches and organs of State.4 6. 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.5 7. That the States Parties to the Convention who have acknowledged the Court’s contentious jurisdiction have the duty to comply with the obligations established by the Tribunal. This obligation includes the State’s duty to inform the Court of the measures adopted in compliance of that ordered by the Tribunal in those decisions. The timely observance of the State’s obligation to inform the Tribunal of how it is complying with each of the matters ordered by the latter is fundamental in evaluating the status of compliance with the Judgment as a whole.6 2 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003, Series C No. 104, para. 131; Case of the Caracazo v. Venezuela. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 23, 2009, Considering clause number three, and Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of September 21, 2009, Considering clause number three. 3 Cf. International Responsibility for the Promulgation and Enforcement of Laws in Violation of the Convention (Arts. 1 and 2 of the American Convention of Human Rights). Advisory opinion OC-14/94 of December 9, 1994, para. 35; Case of the Caracazo v. Venezuela, supra note 2, Considering clause number five, and Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz v. Peru, supra note 2, Considering clause number five. 4 Cf. Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of November 17, 1999. Series C No. 59, Considering clause number three; Case of the Caracazo v. Venezuela, supra note 2, Considering clause number five, and Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz v. Peru, supra note 2, Considering clause number five. 5 Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Competence. Judgment of September 24, 1999. Series C No. 54, para. 37; Case of the Caracazo v. Venezuela, supra note 2, Considering clause number six, and Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz v. Peru, supra note 2, Considering clause number six. 6 Cf. Case of Barrios Altos v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 22, 2005, Considering clause number seven; Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz v. Peru, supra note 2, Considering clause number seven, and Case of Palamara Iribarne v. Chile. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 21, 2009, Considering clause number seven.