3 American Convention" or "the Convention") since December 28, 1977, and it acknowledged the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on July 24, 1984. 3. In accordance with the provisions of Article 67 of the American Convention, the State should fully comply with the Court's Judgments. Furthermore, Article 68(1) of the American Convention stipulates that "the State Parties to the Convention undertake to comply with the Court's decisions in any case to which they are parties." To this end, States should ensure the domestic implementation of provisions set forth in the Court's rulings.1 4. The obligation to comply with the Tribunal's rulings conforms to a basic principle of international law, supported by international jurisprudence, under which States must abide by their international treaty obligations in good faith (pacta sunt servanda) and, as set forth by this Court and in Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969, States cannot, for domestic reasons, neglect their pre-established international responsibility. 2 The treaty obligations of State Parties are binding on all branches and bodies of the State.3 5. The States Parties to the Convention must ensure compliance with its conventional provisions and their effectiveness (effet utile) within their respective domestic legal systems. This principle applies not only to the substantive provisions of human rights treaties (i.e., those addressing protected rights), but also to procedural provisions, such as those concerning compliance with the Court’s decisions. These obligations should be interpreted and enforced in such a manner that the protected guarantee is truly practical and effective, bearing in mind the special nature of human rights treaties.4 A) Regarding the obligation to identify, prosecute and, if applicable, punish, within a reasonable time, all those responsible for the violations of the rights of Daniel David Tibi (Operative Paragraph 10 of the Judgment) 6. The State reported that, by means of Writ No. 1413 of March 13, 2009, the Public Prosecutor’s Office was summoned to a meeting in order to coordinate the prosecution and punishment of those responsible for the human rights violations. The State reported that, by means of Writ No. 5021 of September 17, 2009, it requested that the Public Prosecutor’s Office submit information regarding the status of the investigations into the complaints filed by the Attorney General’s Office. In this regard, it indicated that the Public Prosecutor’s Office confirmed that four steps had been taken during the investigation process: a) orders were issued requesting the receipt of Lieutenant Coronel Abraham Correa’s and Ángel Rubio’s 1 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 60; Case of Valle Jaramillo v. Colombia. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of December 21, 2010, Considering Clause 3, and Case of the Ituango Massacre v. Colombia. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of December 22, 2010, Considering Clause 3 and 4. 2 Cf. International responsibility for the issuance and application of laws that violate the Convention (Art. 1 and 2 of the American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion AO-14/94 of December 9, 1994. Series A No. 14, para. 35; Case of Valle Jaramillo v. Colombia, supra note 1, Considering Clause 4, and Case of Castro Castro Prison v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of December 21, 2010, Considering Clause 6. 3 Cf. Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 17, 1999, Considering Clause 3; Case of Valle Jaramillo v. Colombia, supra note 1, Considering Clause 4, and Case of Castro Castro Prison v. Peru, supra note 2, Considering Clause 6. 4 Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Competence. Judgement of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 24, 1999. Series C No. 54, para. 37; Case of Valle Jaramillo v. Colombia, supra note 1, Considering Clause 5, and Case of Castro Castro Prison v. Peru, supra note 2, Considering Clause 7.