4 4. In consideration of section 67 of the American Convention which stipulates that the judgment of the Court shall be final and shall not be subject to appeal, such judgment shall be fully and promptly complied with by the State. 5. The obligation to comply with the rulings of the Tribunal conforms to a basic principle of the law on the international responsibility of States, under which States are required to fulfill their international treaty obligations in good faith (pacta sunt servanda) and, as previously held by the Court and provided for in Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969, States cannot invoke their municipal laws to escape from their pre-established international responsibilities.2 The treaty obligations of States Parties are binding on all State powers and organs.3 6. The States Parties to the Convention must ensure compliance with its conventional provisions and their inherent effects (effet utile) within their respective domestic legal systems. This principle applies not only in connection with the substantive provisions of human rights treaties (i.e. those dealing with the protected rights) but also in connection with procedural rules, such as the ones concerning compliance with the decisions of the Court. Such obligations are intended to be interpreted and enforced in a manner such that the protected guarantee is truly practical and effective, taking into account the special nature of human rights treaties.4 7. Those States Parties to the American Convention that have accepted the binding jurisdiction of the Court are under a duty to fulfill the obligations set by the Tribunal. This obligation includes the State’s duty to report on the measures adopted to comply with such decisions of the Court. Timely fulfillment of the State’s obligation to report to the Court on the exact manner in which it is complying with each of the aspects ordered by the latter is essential to evaluate the whole status of compliance in this case.5 * * * 8. Regarding the payment to the victims or their successors signatory to the agreements and to issuance of the payment receipts (operative paragraph one and five of the Orders of October 30, 2008 and July 1, 2009), the State forwarded copy of the 2 See International Responsibility for the Promulgation and Enforcement of Laws in Violation of the Convention (articles 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 Cesti Hurtado V. Peru, supra note 1, Considering clause five; and case of El Amparo V. Venezuela, supra note 1, considering clause five. 3 See 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. Series C Nº 59, considering clause three; Case of El Amparo V. Venezuela, supra note 1, considering clause five and Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters V. El Salvador. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 3, 2010, Considering Clause five. 4 See Case of Ivcher Bronstein V Peru. Competence. Judgment of September 24, 1999. Series C No. 54, para. 37; Case of Cesti Hurtado V. Peru, supra note 1, Considering clause six; and case of El Amparo V. Venezuela, supra note 1, considering clause six. 5 See Case of the “Five Pensioners” V. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 17, 2004, considering clause five; Case of Garcia Prieto et al V. El Salvador. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 3, 2010, considering clause five; and Case of Ivcher Bronstein V. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, of November 24, 2009; Considering clause seven.