28 damage corresponding to the victim, was divided between them62; in Garrido and Baigorria v. Argentina, the condition of beneficiary by succession of the nonpecuniary damage was recognized to the two natural children of Raúl Baigorria, based on a statement made by the latter63; in the Street Children (Villagrán Morales et al ) v. Guatemala, the Court declared that Articles 5(2), 8(1) and 25 of the American Convention had been violated with regard to the mothers and one of the grandmothers of the five street children who had been tortured, and four of them killed at the hands of State agents.64 Lastly, in Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala, although the Commission requested the Court to declare that several norms of the Convention had been violated to the detriment of Bámaca Velásquez, the Court recognized that other rights had been violated with regard to the victim’s wife, sisters and father. 60. As indicated in the preceding paragraph, and in accordance with the basic principle of general international law embodied in Article 27 of the Vienna Convention, “[a] party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty”, because the States must comply with their international treaty obligations in good faith (pacta sunt servanda). As the Court has recently decided in Bulacio v. Argentina:65 [...] provisions relating to the statute of limitations or any other obstacle of domestic law that seek to impede the investigation and punishment of those responsible for human rights violations are inadmissible.66 The Court considers that the general obligations embodied in Articles 1(1) and 2 of the American Convention require the States Parties to adopt promptly all measures to ensure that no one is excluded from the right to judicial protection,67 embodied in Article 25 of the American Convention. In this respect, as this Court has already indicated, the provisions or obstacles of domestic law by means of which the State attempts to impede the application of a norm or custom of international law are inadmissible.68 62 El Amparo case, Reparations, supra note 46, case, supra note 10, para. 164 b). 63 para. 40. Cf. similarly, Juan Humberto Sánchez Garrido and Baigorria case, Reparations, supra note 49, paras. 55 and 56. 64 The “Street Children” case (Villagrán Morales et al.), supra note 30, fourth and sixth operative paragraphs. 65 Cf., Bulacio case, supra note 13, paras. 113 and ff.; Neira Alegría et al. case. Compliance with judgment. Order of the Court of November 28, 2002, third considering paragraph; El Amparo case. Compliance with judgment. Order of the Court of November 28, 2002, third considering paragraph; Loayza Tamayo case. Compliance with judgment. Order of the Court of November 27, 2002, third considering paragraph; Garrido and Baigorria case. Compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 27, 2002, third considering paragraph; and inter alia, Trujillo Oroza case, Reparations, supra note 20, para. 106; Barrios Altos case. Reparations, supra note 49, para. 41; and Barrios Altos case. Interpretation of the judgment on merits. (Art. 67 of the American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of September 3, 2001. Series C No. 83, para. 15. 66 Cf., Trujillo Oroza case, Reparations, supra note 30, para. 106; Barrios Altos case, supra note 3, para. 41; and Barrios Altos case. Interpretation of the judgment on merits, supra note 65, para. 15. 67 68 Cf., Barrios Altos case, supra note 48, para. 43. Bulacio case, supra note 13, paras. 113 and ff.; Neira Alegría et al. case. Compliance with judgment, supra note 65, third considering paragraph; El Amparo case. Compliance with judgment, supra note 65, third considering paragraph; Loayza Tamayo case. Compliance with judgment, supra note 65,