must ensure implementation at the national level of the Court’s decisions in its judgments.1
The obligation to fulfill that provided by the Court includes the State’s duty to inform the
Court of the measures adopted to comply with the rulings of the Court. The prompt
implementation of the State’s obligation to report to the Court on how each aspect ordered
by the Court is being fulfilled is essential in order to assess the status of compliance with
the Judgment as a whole. 2
3.
The obligation to comply with the decisions in the Court’s judgments corresponds to
a basic principle of the law of the international responsibility of the State, supported by
international case law, according to which, States must comply with their 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 perform a treaty3. The treaty obligations of the States Parties are binding for all
the powers and organs of the State. 4
4.
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 not only with regard to the substantive norms of human rights treaties
(that is, those which contain provisions concerning the protected rights), but also with
regard to procedural norms, such as those referring to compliance with the decisions of the
Court. These obligations must be interpreted and applied so that the protected guarantee is
truly practical and effective, bearing in mind the special nature of human rights treaties. 5
A. Obligation to provide medical and psychological or psychiatric care, free of
charge and in an immediate, appropriate and effective manner, through its
specialized public health institutions to those victims who so request it,
under the terms of paragraphs 254 and 255 of the Judgment (operative
paragraph two)

1

Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. V. Panamá. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No.

104, para. 60, and Case of Castañeda Gutman V. México. Monitoring of Compliance with Judgment. Order of the
Inter-American Court of Human Rights of August 28, 2013, Considering clause three.
2

Cf. Case of Five Pensioners V. Perú. Monitoring of Compliance with the Judgment. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of November 17, 2004, Considering clause 5, and Case of Kimel V. Argentina.
Monitoring of Compliance with the Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 5,
2013, Considering clause 2.
3

Cf. International Responsibility for the Promulgation and Enforcement of Laws in Violation of the Convention

(Arts. 1 and 2 American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-14/94 of December 9, 1994. Series A
No. 14, para. 35, and Case of Vélez Loor V. Panamá. Monitoring of Compliance with the Judgment. Order of the
Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February, 13, 2013, Considering clause 3.
4

Cf. Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. V. Perú. Monitoring of Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-

American Court of Human Rights of November 17, 1999, Considering clause three, and Case of Vélez Loor V.
Panamá. Monitoring of Compliance with the Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of
February 13, 2013, Considering clause 3.
5

Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein V. Perú. Competence. Judgment of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights

of September 24, 1999. Series C No. 54, para. 37, and Case of Vélez Loor V. Panamá. Monitoring of Compliance
with the Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 13, 2013, Considering clause
3.

3

Select target paragraph3