3 August 3, 2005; November 4, 7, 10, and 28, 2005; December 26, 2005; January 24, 2006; March 16, 2006; December 8, 2006; April 11, 2007; October 5 and 8, 2007; November 22 and 26, 2007. 4 The comments on the State compliance reports submitted by the InterAmerican Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American Commission” or “the Commission”) on August 19, 2005; November 22, 2005; February 2, 2006; April 4, 2006; May 2, 2007; October 15, 2007; November 27, 2007. CONSIDERING: 1. That monitoring compliance with its decisions is a power inherent in the judicial functions of the Court. 2. That Guatemala has been a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the American Convention” or “the Convention”) since May 25, 1978 and that it accepted the jurisdiction of the Court on March 9, 1987. 3. That the obligation to comply with the judgments of the Court conforms to a basic principle of the Law of International Responsibility of States, upheld by international case law, under which States are required to comply with their international treaty obligations in good faith (pacta sunt servanda) and, as previously held by this Court and provided for in Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969, States may not invoke the provisions of its internal law to escape their pre-established international responsibility.1 The treaty obligations of States Parties are binding on all State powers and organs. 4. That the States Parties to the Convention are required to guarantee compliance with the provisions thereof and their effects (effet utile) at the domestic level. This principle is applicable not only with regard to the substantive provisions of human rights treaties (i.e. those dealing with the protected rights) but also with regard to procedural rules, such as those concerning compliance with the decisions of the Court. These obligations are to be interpreted and enforced in a manner such that the protected guarantee is truly practical and effective, bearing in mind the special nature of human rights treaties.2 * * * 1 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. Series A No. 14, para. 35; Case of Castillo-Petruzzi et al. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 17, 1999. Series C No. 59, Considering clause No. 4; Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 2, 2007, Considering clause No. 3; and Case of García-Asto and Ramírez-Rojas v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 12, 2007, Considering clause No. 6. 2 Cf. Case of Ivcher-Bronstein v. Peru. Competence. Judgment of September 24, 1999. Series C No. 54, para. 37; Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment, supra note 1, Considering clause No. 4; and Case of García-Asto and Ramírez-Rojas v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment, supra note 1, Considering clause No. 7.