5 they are parties.” Thus, States must ensure that the decisions of the Court are implemented domestically.2 4. The obligation to comply with the rulings of the Court conforms to a basic principle of law, supported by international jurisprudence, according to which States must comply with their international treaty obligations in good faith (pacta sunt servanda) and, as this Court has previously stated and as set forth in Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969, States cannot invoke their domestic laws to escape their pre-established international responsibility.3 States Parties’ obligations under the Convention bind all State branches and organs.4 5. The States Parties to the Convention must guarantee compliance with its provisions and their effects (effet utile) in their domestic legal orders. This principle applies not only in connection with the substantive provisions of human rights treaties (i.e., those addressing the rights protected), but also in connection with procedural rules, such as those concerning compliance with the Court’s decisions. These obligations are to be interpreted and implemented in such a way that the protected guarantee is truly practical and effective, considering the special nature of human rights treaties.5 6. In its brief of September 30, 2011 (supra Having Seen clause 14), the representatives informed the Tribunal of statements made by the Surinamese government before the United Nations Human Rights Council in response to its Universal Periodic Review of May 6, 2011, to the effect that it “c[ould] not support” recommendations that it comply with the Court’s Judgment in this case, particularly with respect to indigenous and land rights issues, as it is planning a “[n]ational land [r]ights conference” in order to discuss these issues with stakeholders, civil society, and the UN Special Rapporteur “on land rights [sic].”6 The Commission expressed concern that the State’s affirmations before the United Nations Human Rights Council “confirm[ed] that [it] is not complying with the orders of the […] Court” and requested that the Tribunal “require the State to provide information on the steps being taken [with respect] to every 2 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo v. Panama. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 60; and Case of the Yean and Bosico Girls v. Dominican Republic. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of October 10, 2011, Considering clause four. 3 Cf. International Responsibility for the Promulgation and Enforcement of Laws in Violation of the Convention (Arts. 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; and Case of the Yean and Bosico Girls v. Dominican Republic. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment, supra note 2, Considering clause 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, Considering clause three; and Case of the Yean and Bosico Girls v. Dominican Republic. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment, supra note 2, Considering clause five. 5 Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Competence. Judgment of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 24, 1999, para. 37; and Case of the Yean and Bosico Girls v. Dominican Republic. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment, supra note 2, Considering clause six. 6 According to the representatives, the members of the Saramaka community have been told that their traditional authorities will only be able to attend the “national land rights conference” (supra Considering clause 6) as “‘observers.’” Additionally, the representatives submitted a document entitled, “Report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review” with respect to Suriname,” UN Doc. A/HRC/18/12. This document states that Suriname indicated that it had “implemented several aspects of the [Inter-American] Court's [J]udgment[, while] other aspects called for more in-depth consultation with the communities concerned.” Additionally, Suriname expressed that the “Implementation of the part of the judgment[] which dealt with the amendment of laws and regulations[] was pending,” and that it had, for this purpose, “requested information and technical assistance on best practices regarding the drafting of legislation on the issue and procedures to be enacted, including consultation procedures.” In the “National report submitted in accordance with paragraph 15 (a) of the annex to Human Rights Council resolution 5/1,” A/HRC/WG.6/11/SUR/1, Suriname manifested its willingness to comply with the Judgment of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and to recognize the collective rights of indigenous and maroon peoples.