3 6. That the States Parties to the Convention must ensure compliance with its provisions and their inherent effects (effet utile) within their respective domestic legal systems. This principle is applicable not only with regard to the substantive norms of human rights treaties (that is, those which contain provisions concerning the protected rights), but also with regard to procedural norms, such as those referring to compliance with the decisions of the Court. These obligations shall be interpreted and applied so that the protected guarantee is truly practical and effective, bearing in mind the special nature of human rights treaties.4 7. That the Court considers that the hearing held to monitor the points pending compliance in this case, characterized by the good will and spirit of cooperation of the parties, was extremely useful. * * * 8. That, regarding the granting of the traditional lands to the members of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community (hereinafter “the Community”) (sixth operative paragraph of the Judgment), the Court ordered that “the State should provide information on all the measures taken to this end and forward the necessary supporting documents.”5 9. That the State indicated that “at this time the Attorney General’s Office […] is gathering the relevant documentation to again ask for a preventive measure on the traditional lands requested by the Community,” and that “the [Paraguayan Institute for Indigenous Peoples (hereinafter “INDI”)] is currently preparing the application for the expropriation of the lands for the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community, for its subsequent presentation to Parliament by the Executive Branch.” The State also indicated that the lands claimed by the Community were in private hands and that, in such cases, the most appropriate procedure would be to initiate an expropriation process, which would be “very conflictive in some cases” and would take time. Lastly, the State suggested the possibility of identifying alternative lands “within the same area,” in consultation with the Community. 10. That the representatives indicated that “[t]he State has not initiated any negotiation process with the actual owners of the land[; they d]o not know of any action designed to seek a rapprochement with the firms who own the land[; n]o one has been appointed to take charge of the process, nor have criteria or a framework been established for discussions with the representatives of the firms[;] there is no expropriation plan, and no funds budgeted for acquisition of the land.” They also expressed their “concern, regarding the renewed proposal by the State suggesting the possibility of granting alternative land, because the efforts made to grant the lands that are the subject of the Community’s claim have been totally insufficient. It might be possible to consider a proposal of that nature if the State had taken any judgment, supra note 2, sixth considering paragraph, and Molina Theissen v. Guatemala. Compliance with judgment, supra note 2, third considering paragraph. 4 Cf. Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Competence. Judgment of September 24, 1999. Series C No. 54, para. 37; Gómez Palomino v. Peru. Compliance with judgment. Order of the Court of October 18, 2007, fourth considering paragraph, and García Asto and Ramírez Rojas v. Peru. Compliance with judgment, supra note 2, seventh considering paragraph. 5 Cf. Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Compliance with judgment. Order of the Court of February 2, 2007, fourth operative paragraph.