2 of the Court. 2. That Brazil ratified the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter, "the American Convention”) on September 25, 1992, and, in accordance with Article 62 thereof, recognized the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on December 10, 1998. 3. That Article 68(1) of the American Convention establishes that "[t]he States Parties to the Convention undertake to comply with the judgment of the Court in any case to which they are parties”. For that purpose, the States must ensure the implementation, within their jurisdictions, of the orders issued by the Court in its decisions.1 4. That in view of the final and non-appealable nature of the judgments of the Court, as established in Article 67 of the American Convention, they should be fully and promptly complied with by the State. 5. That the obligation to comply with the rulings of the Court conforms to a basic principle of the law on the international responsibility of States, as supported by international case law, whereby States are required to comply with 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 their pre-established international responsibility.2 The obligations imposed under the Convention upon State Parties bound all powers and authorities of the State.3 6. That the States Parties to the American Convention must ensure compliance with its provisions and their inherent effects (effet utile) within their respective domestic legal systems. This principle applies not only to the substantive provisions of human rights treaties (in other words, the clauses on protected rights), but also to procedural provisions, such as the one concerning compliance with the judgments rendered by the Court. These obligations shall be interpreted and applied so that the protected guarantee be truly practical and efficient. The special nature of the human rights treaties must be taken into account.4 1 Cf. Case of Baena-Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 131; Case of Herrera-Ulloa v. Costa Rica. Monitoring compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 9, 2009, Considering clause No. 3; and Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 9, 2009, Considering clause No. 3. 2 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, para. 35; Case of Herrera Ulloa, supra note 1, Considering clause No. 5, and Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre, supra note 1, Considering clause No. 5. 3 Cf. Case of Castillo-Petruzzi et al. v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the InterAmerican Court of November 17, 1999. Series C No. 59; Considering clause No. 3; Case of Herrera Ulloa, supra note 1, Considering clause No. 5, and Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre, supra note 1, Considering clause No. 5. 4 Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Competence. Judgment of September 24, 1999. Series C No. 54, para. 37; Case of Herrera Ulloa, supra note 1, Considering clause No. 6, and Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre, supra note 1, Considering clause No. 6.