-43. Pursuant to Article 78(2) of the Convention, a denunciation of the treaty does not relieve the State of its obligations with respect to any act that may constitute a violation of said Convention and that has occurred prior to the entry into force of said denunciation, as stated in the March 11, 2005 Judgment.3 4. Pursuant to Article 68(1) of the American Convention, “[t]he States Parties to the Convention undertake to comply with the judgment of the Court in any case to which they are parties.” Therefore, the States must ensure that the rulings set out in the decisions of the Court are implemented at the domestic level.4 5. In view of the definitive and conclusive nature of the judgments of the Court, pursuant to Article 67 of the Convention, the State must promptly and completely comply with them5 within the term set for this purpose.6 6. The obligation to comply with the rulings of the decisions of the Court accords with a basic principle of law regarding the international responsibility of the State, supported by international case law. That is, States must fulfill 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 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, they cannot avoid compliance with the previously established international responsibility for domestic reasons.7 7. The State Parties to the American Convention shall guarantee the compliance with treaty obligations and their effectiveness (effet utile) in their respective domestic legal systems. This principle applies not only with regards to substantive provisions contained in human rights treaties (that is, those containing provisions on protected rights), but also with regard to procedural provisions, such as those related to the compliance with judgments of the Court. Those obligations should be interpreted and applied in such a 3 Cf. Case of Caesar v. Trinidad and Tobago. supra note 1, para. 6, and Case of Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamín et al. v. Trinidad and Tobago. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 27, 2003, Considering paragraph second. 4 Cf. Case of Baena-Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 131; Case of García-Asto and Ramírez-Rojas v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 12, 2007, Considering paragraph fourth, and Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of February 02, 2007, Considering paragraph second. 5 Cf. Case of Barrios Altos v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 22, 2002, Considering paragraph second; Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of December 14, 2007, Considering paragraph third, and Case of the “White Van" (PaniaguaMorales et al.) v. Guatemala. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of October, 2007, Considering paragraph third. 6 Cf. Case of Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. v. Trinidad and Tobago. supra note 2, Considering paragraph fourth. 7 Cf. Case of the Constitutional Court v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of November 17, 2004, Considering paragraph third; Case of García-Asto and Ramírez-Rojas v. Peru. supra note 5, Considering paragraph sixth, and Case of Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. supra note 5, Considering paragraph third.