4 ignore their international responsibility.2 The treaty obligations of State Parties are binding on all branches and bodies of the State.3 6. The States Parties to the Convention must guarantee compliance with the provisions thereof and their effectiveness (effet utile) within their 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 7. The States Parties to the Convention that have recognized the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court have a duty to comply with the obligations provided for by the Court. This includes the duty of the State to report on measures taken to comply with the Court's Orders. Timely fulfillment of the State's obligation to advise the Court how it is complying with each of the points it ordered is essential in order to assess the state of compliance with the Judgment as a whole.5 a) Obligation to effectively investigate and identify, prosecute and, where appropriate, punish those responsible for the acts 8. Regarding the obligation to investigate and identify, prosecute and, if applicable, punish those responsible for the acts (operative paragraph nine of the Judgment), the State indicated “once it has received official information from the Judiciary" on a habeas corpus proceeding in connection to the Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz case, it will submit it to the Court. 9. The representatives initially reported that “the term for judicial investigation in the criminal proceedings for human rights violations against Saúl Cantoral Huamaní and Consuelo García Santa Cruz has expired, and the case file was forwarded to 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 the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of December 21, 2010, Considering Clause six, and Case of Valle Jaramillo v. Colombia, supra note 1, Considering Clause four. Cf. Case 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; Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru, supra note 2, Considering Clause six, and Case of Valle Jaramillo v. Colombia, supra note 1, Considering Clause four. 3 4 Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Competence. Judgment of September 24, 1999, Series C. No. 54, para. 37; Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru, supra note 2, Considering Clause seven, and Case of Valle Jaramillo v. Colombia, supra note 1, Considering Clause five. 5 Cf. Case of Five Pensioners v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of November 17, 2004, Considering Clause five; 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 seven, and Case of Ximenes Lopes v. Brazil. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 17, 2010, Considering Clause seven.