9 municipal laws to escape from their pre-established international responsibility. The treaty obligations of States Parties are binding on all State powers and organs. 3 5. 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 applies not only in connection with the substantive provisions of human rights treaties (i.e. those dealing with provisions on protected rights) but also in connection with procedural rules, such as the ones concerning compliance with the decisions of the Court. Such obligations are intended to be interpreted and enforced in a manner such that the protected guarantee is truly practical and effective, taking into account the special nature of human rights treaties. 4 6. That the Tribunal emphasizes that during the stage of monitoring compliance with the Judgment, the Court's Secretariat, following the instructions of the President of the Court, has addressed to the representatives on several occasions (supra Having Seen clauses 6 and 9) to request them to forward their observations to the State's reports. The representatives have not forwarded the information that was requested to them within the term established to such end; therefore the Court deems that they did not comply with the duty to inform the Tribunal in time fashion. 7. That, upon monitoring compliance with the pending aspects of the instant case, and also determining the provisional measures where pertinent, the Court values the relevance of the hearing held to such end, which is represented by the good will and spirit of cooperation shown by the parties. In particular, the Tribunal values that the State, the Commission and the representatives have organized meetings evidencing the common purpose and commitment to achieve compliance with the pending aspects. * * * 8. That as to the obligation to investigate effectively the facts of this case, in a reasonable time, in order to identify, prosecute and punish all the masterminds and perpetrators of the violations committed (operative paragraphs five and paragraphs 256 to 263 of the judgment), the State requested the Tribunal not to mention the information forwarded by the parties in relation to the investigation conducted into those facts and the search for the mortal remains of the victims in any public document, in view of the fact that the case is at the stage of preliminary proceedings. The foregoing implies that the proceedings conducted by the Human Rights Division “must be known only by the parties within the proceeding and that the non-observance of this provision not only gives rise to penalties for the officers 3 Cf. International Responsibility for the Promulgation and Enforcement of Laws in Violation of the Convention (articles 1and 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 Gómez Palomino V. Peru, supra note 2, considering clause 5 and Case of the Dismissed Congressional Employees (Aguado Alfaro et al.) V. Peru, supra note 2, considering clause 4. 4 Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein V. Peru. Competence. Judgment of the Inter-American Court of Human rights of September 24, 1999. Series C Nº 54, para. 37; case of Gómez Palomino V. Peru, supra note 2, considering clause 6; and Case of Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community V. Paraguay, Monitoring Compliance with the Judgment. Order of the President of the Court of May 20, 2009; considering clause 6.