international case law, according to which, States must comply with their international
treaty obligations in good faith (pacta sunt servanda) and, as this Court has already
indicated and as established in Article 27 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of
Treaties, a party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its
failure to perform a treaty 3. The treaty obligations of the States Parties are binding for all
the 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 with the decisions of the
Court. These obligations must 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. Obligation of annulment of the military proceedings and the effects resulting
therefrom (Operative paragraph No. 8 of the Judgment on the merits and
Operative paragraphs No. 2 and 3 of the Judgment regarding interpretation
of the judgment on the merits)
6.
The State reported, in relation to the criminal proceeding held within the Military-Police
Forum against Gustavo Adolfo Cesti Hurtado for the crimes of disobedience against his duty
and dignity of the profession, negligence and fraud, that on November 10, 1999, the War
Chamber ordered that Mr. Cesti Hurtado be set free and it lifted the orders preventing Mr.
Cesti Hurtado from exiting the country, to which he was released that same day. Moreover,
on November 18, 1999, the ban on leaving the country and indictment was lifted, and the
arrest warrants against Mr. Cesti Hurtado were rescinded. Moreover, by way of the Order of
September 14, 2000, the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Council on Military Justice, today
the Supreme Court on Military-Police: i) annulled the Supreme Final Judgment of the Review
Chamber of the Supreme Council of Military Justice of May 2, 1997, which affirmed the
judgment of the War Chamber of April 13, 1997, that had convicted Mr. Cesti Hurtado as
the perpetrator of fraud with imprisonment and ordered him to pay civil damages ii)
annulled the preliminary hearing of Cesti Hurtado; iii) annulled the writ of inquiry against
him on charges of disobedience against his professional duty and dignity of the profession,
negligence and fraud, and iv) provided that the Magistrate of the Supreme Council of
Military Justice suspend the orders restricting freedom and attachments on property issued
against Cesti Hurtado. Similarly, on September 27, 2000, a request was made to a financial
Corporation and the National Superintendent of Public Records, respectively, regarding the
lifting of the attachment in terms of retention and registration against Mr. Cesti Hurtado.
3
Cf. International Responsibility for the Promulgation and Enforcement of Laws in Violation of the Convention
(Arts. 1 and 2 American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-14/94 of December 9, 1994. Series A
No. 14, para. 35, and Case of Castañeda Gutman V. México. Monitoring of Compliance with Judgment. Order of the
Inter-American Court of Human Rights of August 28, 2013, Considering clause four.
Cf. Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. V. Perú. Monitoring of Compliance with Judgment. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of November 17, 1999, Considering clause three, and Case of Castañeda Gutman
V. México. Monitoring of Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of August
28, 2013, Considering clause four.
4
Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein V. Perú. Competence. Judgment of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights
of September 24, 1999. Series C No. 54, para. 37, and Case of Castañeda Gutman V. México. Monitoring of
Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of August 28, 2013, Considering
clause five.
5
3