56 Article 25 of the American Convention. 151. In accordance with the treaty obligations undertaken by the States, no domestic legal provision or institution, including extinguishment, may be used to avoid compliance with decisions of the Court regarding investigation and punishment of those responsible for human rights violations. If this were not so, the rights enshrined in the American Convention would be devoid of effective protection. This view of the Court is in accordance with the language and spirit of the Convention, as well as the general principles of international law; one of these principles is that of pacta sunt servanda, which requires ensuring that the provisions of a treaty have an effet utile in the domestic law of the States Party.119 152. Pursuant to the general principles of international law, and as follows from Article 27 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on Treaty Law; application of decisions of the international human rights protection bodies cannot be obstructed by domestic legal rules or provisions.120 153. Notwithstanding the above, in the instant case it was shown that Rafael Samuel and Emilio Moisés Gómez Paquiyauri were tortured (supra para. 117), a situation that places the State under a special duty to investigate. In this regard, the administrative and judicial authorities abstained from formally beginning a criminal investigation regarding to the torture committed. 154. Article 8 of the Inter-American Convention against Torture explicitly sets forth the obligation of the State to act ex officio and immediately in cases such as the instant one, independently of the victim’s inactivity. In this regard, the Court has argued that “in proceedings on human rights violation, the State’s defense cannot rest on the impossibility of the plaintiff to produce evidence that, in many cases, cannot be obtained without the cooperation of the State.”121 In the instant case, the State did not comply with these provisions. 155. The fact that the State did not effectively investigate the acts of torture and allowed them to remain in a situation of impunity means that the State did not adopt effective measures to avoid repetition of this type of acts under its jurisdiction, which disregards the provisions of Article 6 of the Inter-American Convention against Torture. 156. Based on the above, the Court finds that the State violated the rights enshrined in Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention, in combination with Article 1(1) of this same Convention and the obligations set forth in Article 8 of the Inter-American Convention against Torture, to the detriment of Rafael Samuel and Emilio Moisés Gómez Paquiyauri. The State also violated the rights enshrined in Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention, in combination with Article 1(1) of this same Convention, to the detriment of their next of kin, Ricardo Samuel Gómez 119 See Case of Bulacio, supra note 6, paras. 117 and 142; Case of the “Five Pensioners”, supra note 22, para. 164; Case of Hilaire et al. Judgment of June 21, 2002. Series C No. 94, para. 112; and Case of Trujillo Oroza. Reparations, supra note 116, para. 96. 120 See Case of Bulacio, supra note 6, para. 118. See Case of Maritza Urrutia, supra note 5, para. 128; Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.), supra note 68, para. 251; Case of Gangaram Panday. Judgment of November 21, 1994. Series C No. 16, para. 49; and Case of Godínez Cruz . Judgment of January 20, 1989. Series C No. 5, para. 141. 121