3 4. That taking into consideration that the judgments rendered by the Court are final and not subject to appeal, as stated in Article 67 of the American Convention, they are to be fully and promptly complied with by the State within the term set for that purpose. 5. That the obligation to comply with the decisions of the Court conforms to a basic legal principle of the law of the international responsibility of the States, as supported by international case law, under which the States must comply with their international treaty obligations in good faith (pacta sunt servanda) and, as stated by the Court in prior cases and set forth in Article 27 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a party may not invoke the provisions of its domestic law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty.2 The treaty obligations of States Parties to fully comply with the decisions of the Court are binding on all State powers and organs.3 6. That the States Parties to the American Convention must secure compliance with the provisions thereof and their effects (effet utile) at the domestic law level. This principle applies not only in relation to the substantive provisions of human rights treaties (i.e. those dealing with the protected rights), but also in relation to procedural rules, such as those concerning compliance with the decisions of the Court. Such obligations are to be construed and enforced in a manner such that the protected guarantee is truly practical and effective, taking into consideration the special nature of human rights treaties.4 7. That the States Parties to the Convention that have accepted the binding jurisdiction of the Court are under a duty to fulfill the obligations established by the Court. Therefore, the State of Paraguay must adopt all such measures as may be necessary to fully comply with the obligations ordered by the Court in its Judgment of September 26, 2006. This obligation includes the State’s duty to report on the measures adopted to comply with the decisions of the Court. Timely fulfillment of the State’s obligation to report to the Court on the manner in which it is complying with each of the obligations ordered thereby is essential to assess the progress made in compliance with the Judgment as a whole. * * * 8. That regarding the obligations set forth in the Judgment, the State informed that the Attorney General of the Republic had submitted a request to the President of Paraguay for the creation of an Inter-institutional Commission so that judgments delivered by the InterAmerican Court may be fully complied with. To date no further information has been provided to the Court on the creation of such Commission. Honduras. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of August 5, 2008, Considering clause 3. 2 Cf. International Responsibility for the Promulgation and Enforcement of Laws in Violation of the Convention (Articles 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 Goiburú et al., supra note 1, Considering clause 5, and Case of Servellón-Garc��a et al., supra note 1, Considering clause 4. 3 Cf. Case of Caballero-Delgado and Santana v. Colombia. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 6, 2008, Considering clause 2; Case of Goiburú et al., supra note 1, Considering clause 5, and Case of Servellón-García et al., supra note 1, Considering clause 4. 4 Cf. Case of Ivcher-Bronstein v. Peru. Competence. Judgment of September 24, 1999. Series C No. 54, para. 37; Case of Goiburú et al., supra note 1, Considering clause 6, and Case of Servellón-García et al., supra note 1, Considering clause 5.