23. Furthermore, as Venezuela recognized during the private hearing, the States Parties to the Convention cannot invoke provisions of constitutional law or other aspects of domestic law to justify failure to comply with or to enforce the obligations contained in the said treaty.45 24. As the Court has indicated,46 Article 63(1) of the Convention reproduces the text of a customary norm that constitutes one of the fundamental principles of the law on the international responsibility of States.47 When an unlawful act occurs that can be attributed to a State, this creates its international responsibility for the violation of an international norm. Based on this responsibility, a new legal responsibility arises for the State consisting in the obligation to make reparation.48 25. 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 Court’s decisions. 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.49 26. The Court has also established that it is aware that the domestic authorities are subject to the rule of law and are, therefore, obliged to apply the provisions in force in the legal system.50 Nevertheless, when a State is a party to an international treaty, such as the American Convention, all its organs, including its judges and other organs involved in the administration of justice, are also subject to the treaty, which obliges them to ensure that the effects of the provisions of the Convention and, consequently, the decisions of the InterAmerican Court, are not affected by the application of norms contrary to its object and purpose. The judges and organs involved in the administration of justice at all levels are obliged to exercise ex officio a control of the conformity of domestic laws with the American 45 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; Case of La Cantuta v. Peru. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 20, 2009, fifth considering paragraph, and Case of Cantoral Benavides v. Peru. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 20, 2009, fifth considering paragraph. See also General comments adopted by the Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 31, The nature of the General Legal Obligation Imposed on States Parties to the Covenant, eightieth session, U.N. Doc. HRI/GEN/1/Rev.7 (2004), p. 192. 46 Cf. Case of Castillo Páez v. Peru. Reparations and costs. Judgment of November 27, 1998. Series C No. 43, para. 50, and Case of the Massacres of El Mozote and nearby places v. El Salvador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 25, 2012. Series C. No. 252, para. 302. 47 Cf. Reparation for Injuries Suffered in the Service of the United Nations, Advisory Opinion: I.C.J. Reports 1949, p. 184; Case Concerning the Factory at Chorzów (Claim for Indemnity) (Jurisdiction). Judgment No. 13, 13 September 1928, P.C.I.J. Series A, No. 17; and Case Concerning the Factory at Chorzów (Claim for Indemnity) (Jurisdiction). Judgment No. 8, 26 July 1927, P.C.I.J. Series A, No. 9. 48 Case of Garrido and Baigorria. Reparations (Art. 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of August 27, 1998. Series C No. 39, para. 40. 49 Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Jurisdiction. Judgment of September 24, 1999. Series C No. 54, para. 37, and Case of Barrios Altos v. Peru. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 7, 2012, fifth considering paragraph. 50 Cf. Case of Almonacid Arellano et al. v. Chile. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 154, para. 124, and Case of Furlan and family members v. Argentina. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 31, 2012. Series C No. 246, para. 302. 12