4 party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to assume a previously established international responsibility.1 The treaty obligations of the States Parties are binding for all the powers and organs of the State. 4. That the States Parties to the American Convention must ensure compliance with its provisions and their inherent effects (effet utile) within their respective domestic legal systems. This principle is applicable with regard not only to the substantive norms of human rights treaties (that is, those that include stipulations regarding all protected rights), but also to the procedural norms, such as those referring to compliance with the decisions of the Court. These obligations shall be interpreted and applied so that the guarantee protected is truly practical and effective, bearing in mind the special nature of human rights treaties.2 * * * 5. That upon supervising the comprehensive compliance of the Judgment on Reparations and after analyzing the information provided by the State, the InterAmerican Commission and the representatives in their corresponding briefs (supra Having Seen paragraphs number 6, 7, and 9), the Court has verified that the State has complied with the duty to publish the Judgment in the Official Newspaper and in another newspaper of national circulation (Third Operative Paragraph of the Judgment on Reparations). * * * 6. That the State informed of the realization of a public act of acknowledgment of international responsibility. That the Commission “took note of that informed by the State” and did not make any additional observation in this sense. That the representatives characterized the act as “marred” and, in their opinion, it did not comply with the Court’s intent. The State did not present observations to the criticism made by the representatives to the public act in question. 7. That the Judgment on Reparations in this case (supra Having Seen paragraph number 2) did not specify that in the public act of acknowledgment of responsibility an “official representation of the army” should be present, as argued by the representatives. Cfr. 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 the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Supervision of Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 2, 2005, Considering clause number 3 and Case of Yatama. Compliance with Judgment. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of November 29, 2006, Considering Clause number 5. 1 2 Cfr. Case of Ivcher Bronstein. Competence. Judgment of September 24, 1999. Series C No. 54, para. 37; Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Supervision of Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 2, 2005, Considering clause number 4, and Case of Yatama. Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 29, 2006, Considering Clause number 6.