provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty.3 The treaty obligations of State Parties are binding on all powers and organs of the State.4 5. 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 which must ensure 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.5 a) Regarding the obligation to pay the amounts established in the judgment for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, and reimbursement of costs and expenses (thirteenth operative paragraph of the judgment) 6. The State advised that the payments for compensation, costs and expenses were ordered by Resolution 5108 of the Ministry of National Defense of November 25, 2009, thus complying in full with this reparation measure. In this regard, the State attached three certifications of payment by the Treasury of the Ministry of National Defense that indicate: first, on April 20, 2010, the amount of two hundred and twentyseven million six hundred and seventy-one thousand, four hundred and twenty-eight pesos ($227,671,428.00) was paid into a financial institution in favor of Carlos Fernando Jaramillo Correa, Gloria Lucía Correa, Carlos Enrique Jaramillo Correa, María Lucía Jaramillo Correa, Ana Carolina Jaramillo Correa and Luis Eugenio Jaramillo Correa; second, on December 7, 2009, a payment of two hundred and sixteen million eight hundred and thirty-nine thousand seven hundred pesos ($216,839,700.00) was ordered for the Grupo Interdisciplinario por los Derechos Humanos, in their capacity as representatives and, lastly, nineteen million eight hundred and twenty-four thousand seven hundred and thirty-nine pesos ($19,824,739.00) was paid to Francisco Darío Valle Jaramillo as compensation on May 14, 2010. 7. The representatives advised that the State had complied with the payment of the compensation ordered by the Court for the victims. They stated that the victims Carlos Fernando Jaramillo Correa, his wife Gloria María Correa García, and their children Carlos Enrique, María Lucía and Ana Carolina Jaramillo Correa, as well as Luis Eugenio Jaramillo Correa had presented their request for payment of the amounts ordered in their favor in January 2010, and that these payments had been made. Lastly, they indicated that, although they are unaware of the payment made to Darío Valle Jaramillo, and the respective terms, since he had decided to process his payment separately, they “assume that the information [presented by the State] is accurate, and agree that compliance with this obligation should be declared.” 3 Cf. International Responsibility for the Promulgation and Enforcement of Laws in Violation of the Convention (Art. 1 and 2 of the American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-14/94 of December 9, 1994. Series A No. 14, para. 35; Case of the Dismissed Congressional Workers, supra note 2, fifth considering paragraph, and Case of Vargas Areco, supra note 2, fourth considering paragraph. 4 Cf. Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with judgment. Order of Court of November 17, 1999, considering paragraph 3; Case of the Dismissed Congressional Workers, supra note 2, fifth considering paragraph, and Case of Vargas Areco, supra note 2, fourth considering paragraph. 5 Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Competence. Judgment of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 24, 1999. Series C No. 54, para. 37; Case of the Dismissed Congressional Workers, supra note 2, considering paragraph 6, and Case of Vargas Areco, supra note 2, fifth considering paragraph. 4