-55. That the obligation to comply with the rulings of the Court conforms to a basic principle of law regarding the international responsibility of the State. That is, States must comply with their international treaty obligations in good faith (pacta sunt servanda) and, as this Court has previously stated and is set forth in Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969, they cannot invoke their municipal laws to escape their pre-established international responsibility. The State Parties’ obligations under the Convention bind all State branches and organs.2 6. That States Parties to the Convention must guarantee compliance with the provisions thereof and their effects (effet utile) at the domestic-law level. This principle applies not only in connection with the substantive provisions of human rights treaties (i.e., those addressing the protected rights), but also in connection with their procedural provisions, such as those concerning compliance with the Court’s decisions. These obligations are to be interpreted and enforced in a manner such that the protected guarantee is truly practical and effective, considering the special nature of human rights treaties.3 7. That State Parties to the Convention that have also recognized the binding jurisdiction of the Court have the duty to comply with the obligations established by it. Accordingly, Suriname shall adopt all necessary measures to give effect to the Court’s decisions, as contained in its Order of November 21, 2007 (supra Having Seen clause No. 3). This obligation includes the duty to inform the Court about the actions adopted to comply with the reparations ordered by the Court, which are pending fulfilment. 8. That providing sufficient information on compliance with the Judgment is a duty of the State, repeatedly stated by this Court.4 However, in accordance with the referred Order of the Tribunal (supra Having Seen clause No. 3), the State had a specific duty to submit, by March 25, 2008, a detailed report on the actions taken in compliance with the Judgment. Said report has not been received as of today. Moreover, pursuant to the instructions of the President, in several communications the State was required to submit such report as soon as possible, and it was even granted a new term to do it (supra Having Seen clause No. 4). Nevertheless, the State also failed to submit said report within the new term granted. 9. That this Court has considered that timely fulfillment of the State’s duty to inform the Tribunal is essential to assess the status of compliance with the Judgment5. 2 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 La Cantuta v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Court of December 7, 2009, considering clause No. 5, and Case of CantoralBenavides v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Court of July 9, 2009, considering clause No. 5. 3 Cf. Case of Ivcher-Bronstein v. Peru. Competence. Judgment of September 24, 1999. Series C No. 54, para. 37; Case of La Cantuta v. Peru, supra note 2, Considering clause No. 6, and Case of CantoralBenavides v. Peru, supra note 2, considering clause No. 6. 4 Cf. Case of Neira Alegría et al v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Court of November 28, 2002, considering clause No. 9; Case of Cantoral-Benavides v. Peru, supra note 2, considering clause No. 20, and Case of Palamara-Iribarne v. Chile. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Court of November 30, 2007, considering clause No. 7. 5 Cf. Case of Barrios Altos. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Court of of November 17, 2004, considering clause No. 7; Case of Cantoral-Benavides v. Peru, supra note 2, considering clause No. 21, and Case of Palamara-Iribarne, supra note 2, considering clause No. 7.