3 supported by international case law, according to which a State must fulfill its international treaty obligations in good faith (pacta sunt servanda) and, as this Court has already indicated and as established in Article 27 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to assume a previously established international responsibility.1 The treaty obligations of the States Parties are binding for all the powers and organs of the State. 4. That 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 with regard not only to the substantive norms of human rights treaties (that is, those that include stipulations on the protected rights), but also to the procedural norms, such as those referring to compliance with the decisions of the Court. These obligations shall be interpreted and applied so that the guarantee protected is truly practical and effective, bearing in mind the special nature of human rights treaties.2 * * * 5. That the State informed that it had published the Judgment in the “Diario de Centro América” on June 9, 2005; diffused the same on October 7, 2005, through an “Official Message” of the Division General Ministry of Defense of Guatemala, who ordered the printing of the publication of the Judgment in the Diario de Centro América and that it be placed on the general information bulletin board for two weeks “for the knowledge of all personnel;” and published the Judgment in the written newspaper “Prensa Libre” on December 27, 2005. 6. That the representatives stated that even though the Judgment had been published “in a newspaper with an ample national circulation” and in a newspaper “that acts as an official newspaper”, the State has not responded satisfactorily in compliance to the fifth operative paragraph in relation to “the publication in the gazette with most circulation within Guatemalan armed forces,” since “[t]here is no evidence that the Judgment was printed and placed on the bulletin board of general information“ nor “is there any information about the location of the board and who has access to it.” Therefore, they request that the Court “order the State to inform the members of the Army of the [J]udgment […], either through a webpage or through their ‘agenda’.” 7. That the Commission valued “the State’s actions tending to comply with this [measure of reparation], especially with the publication in the [O]fficial [N]ewspaper and in one of national circulation.” However, it stated that if what is put forward by the representatives with regard to the diffusion of the Judgment within the army is true, the “modality of compliance is significantly different to that ordered by the Court.” 1 Cfr. International Responsibility for the Promulgation and Enforcement of Laws in Violation of the Convention (Arts. 1 and 2 of the American Convention of Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-14/94 of December 9, 1994. Series A No. 14, para. 35; Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community V. Paraguay. Supervision of Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 2, 2007, Considering Clause number 3, and Case of Yatama. Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 29, 2006, Considering Clause number 5. 2 Cfr. Case of Ivcher Bronstein. Competence. Judgment of September 24, 1999. Series C No. 54, para. 37; Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community V. Paraguay. Supervision of Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 2, 2007, Considering Clause number 4, and Case of Yatama. Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 29, 2006, Considering Clause number 6.