3 case to which they are parties.” To that end, the States must ensure the implementation at a domestic level of the Court’s orders set out in its decisions. 1 4. That, pursuant to the final and unappeallable nature of the Court’s decisions under Article 67 of the American Convention, these must be promptly complied by the State in full. 5. That the duty to comply with the Court’s decision constitutes a basic tenet of international responsibility of a State as supported by international case law, according to which States must comply with their international conventional obligations in good faith (pacta sunt servanda) and, as already pointed out by this Court and set forth by Article 27 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, those States for domestic reasons may not avoid the already established international responsibility. The conventional obligations of the States Parties are binding upon all State powers and entities.2 6. That the States Parties to the American Convention must ensure compliance with the conventional provisions and their inherent effects (effet utile) at the level of their respective domestic legal systems. This principle applies not only in relation to the substantive provisions of human rights treaties (that is, those which embody rules on the protected rights), but also to procedural rules, such as those concerned with compliance with this Court’s decisions. These obligations must be interpreted and enforced so that the protected guarantee is truly practical and effective, taking into account the special nature of human rights treaties.3 7. That the States Parties to the American Convention who have acknowledged the binding jurisdiction of the Court have the duty to satisfy the obligations imposed by the Tribunal, which includes the State’s duty to inform the Court of the measures adopted in compliance with the Court’s orders in the Judgment. Prompt compliance with the State’s obligation to inform the Tribunal on how it is complying with each of the operative paragraphs in the Court’s judgment is essential to assessing the status of compliance of the case.4 Additionally, the General Assembly of the Organization of American States has stated again that, in order for the Court to fully comply with its Cf. Case of Baena-Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 131; Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community v. Nicaragua. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Court of April 3, 2009, considering clause No. 3; and Case of Baldeón-García v. Perú. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Court of April 4, 2009, Considering clause No. 3. 1 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, para. 35; Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community, supra note 1, Considering clause No. 5, and Cae of Baldeon-García, supra note 1, Considering clause No. 5. 2 3 Cf. Case of Ivcher-Bronstein v. Perú. Competence. Judgment of September 24, 1999. Series C No. 54, para. 37; Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community, supra note 1, Considering clause No. 6, and Case of Baldeón-García, supra note 1, Considering clause No. 6. 4 Cf. Case of Barrios Altos v. Perú. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of September 22, 2005, Considering clause No. 7; Case of Suárez-Rosero v. Ecuador. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the President of the Court of March 20, 2009, Considering clause No. 5, and Case of Baldeón-García, supra note 1, Considering clause No. 7.