4 6. That the 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 dealing with the rights thereby protected) but also in connection with procedural rules, such as the ones concerning compliance with the decisions of the Court. 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.4 7. That those States Parties to the Convention which have recognized the binding jurisdiction of the Court must comply with the obligations established by the Court. In this regard, Argentina is required to take all such steps as may be required to effectively comply with the rulings of the Court as laid down in the Judgment of September 18, 2003. This obligation includes the State's duty to report on the measures taken to comply with the Court’s orders contained in the aforementioned Judgment. Timely fulfillment of the State’s obligation to report to the Court on the exact manner in which it is complying with each one of the aspects ordered by the latter is essential to evaluate the status of compliance with the Judgment as a whole. * * * 8. That, as regards the obligation to continue and complete the investigation of the facts of the instant case, the State reported that, on December 23, 2004 and based on the Judgment rendered in this case, the Supreme Court of Justice overturned the appealed judgment whereby the criminal action brought against a defendant for the aggravated illegal imprisonment of Walter David Bulacio was dismissed under the statute of limitations. According to the State, faced with the ruling of the Supreme Court of Justice, “the [defendant’s] attorneys again moved for the dismissal of the criminal action based on the statute of limitations in reliance upon Section 67 of the Criminal Code, which motion was rejected in limine by the Prosecutor’s Office and […] allow[ed] by the relevant Court. Thus[,] the case file was submitted to Division VI of the Criminal Appellate Court.” “[O]n March 2, 2006, the General Prosecutor […] asked Division VI of the National Criminal and Correctional Appellate Court to ‘urgently’ decide the ancillary proceeding initiated as a result of the appeal filed by the [d]efense.” On June 26, 2007, Division VI disallowed the defendant’s appeal. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the State announced that, “in spite of the critical decision of the [Supreme Court of Justice,] the investigation, which is a necessary pre-requisite to determine the [relevant] sanctions, has not come to an end.” It should be noted that the President of Argentina has acknowledged that “the judicial delays [in this case have been the] reason [why] from 1996 to date the defense has not replied to the criminal charges and the next of kin have been systematically denied inclusion as complainants in the case.” 9. That, in this regard, the representatives stated that “the Supreme Court’s judgment [of December 23, 2004] is just the first step, as the relevant domestic courts have yet to responsibly carry out the State’s obligation to continue the criminal and administrative investigations into all of the facts of the case.” Moreover, they noted that “there is no Bámaca-Velásquez, supra note 2, twenty-fourth considering clause, and Case of Vargas-Areco, supra note 2, fifth considering clause. 4 Cf. Case of Ivcher-Bronstein v. Peru. Competence. Judgment of September 24, 1999. Series C No. 54, para. 37; Case of Vargas-Areco, supra note 2, sixth considering clause, and Case of Goiburú et al., supra note 1, sixth considering clause.