3 4. That the obligation to comply with the rulings of the Court conforms to a basic principle of the law on the international responsibility of States, under which States are required to fulfill their international treaty obligations in good faith (pacta sunt servanda) and, as previously held by the Court and provided for in Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969, States cannot invoke their municipal laws to escape from their pre-established international responsibility. The treaty obligations of States Parties are binding on all State powers and organs.2 5. That the States Parties to the Convention must ensure compliance with its provisions and their inherent effects (effet utile) within their respective domestic legal systems. This principle applies not only in connection with the substantive provisions of human rights treaties (i.e. those dealing with the protected rights) but also in connection with procedural rules, such as the ones concerning compliance with the decisions of the Court. Such obligations are intended to be interpreted and enforced in a manner such that the protected guarantee is truly practical and effective, taking into account the special nature of human rights treaties.3 * * * 6. That in relation to the operative paragraph eight related to the obligation of the State to undertake, within a reasonable period of time, all actions necessary to identify, prosecute, and, in its case, punish all the perpetrators and planners of the violations committed in detriment of the victims and the obligation to remove all obstacles and mechanisms of fact and law that have maintained the impunity in the present case, the State informed that on February 9, 2005 issued arrest warrants against the following people: a) Jorge Alberto Alfaro Martínez and Victor Hugo Vivas Lozano, accusing them of having allegedly committed the crimes of torture and murder of Orlando Álvarez Ríos, Rony Alexis Betancourt Hernández, Marco Antonio Servellón García and Diómedes Obed García and; b) Roxana Sierra Ramírez for the crime of unlawful arrest of the above mentioned people. Furthermore, the State mentioned that on February 13, 2008 it issued an arrest warrant against David Abraham Mendoza, Marco Tulio Regalado Hernández and José Antonio Martínez Arrázola accusing them of being the alleged responsible for the crime of torture and murder of the above mentioned people. Moreover, the State pointed out that in the procedures initiated to investigate the facts that led to the instant case, it was ordered to separately obtain the testimonies of the following people: Jorge Alberto Alfaro Martínez, Víctor Hugo Vivas Lozano, Mario Roberto Maldonado Ortega, Roxana Sierra Ramírez, David Abraham Mendoza, Marco Tulio Regalado Hernández and José Antonio Martínez Arrázola. Awas Tingni Community v. Nicaragua. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 7, 2008, Considering Clause three. 2 Cf. International Responsibility for the Promulgation and Enforcement of Laws in Violation of the Convention (Articles 1 and 2 American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-14/94 of September 9, 1994, Series A Nº.14, para. 35; Case of Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community, supra note 1, Considering clause five and Case of Raxcacó Reyes v. Guatemala; Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of May 9, 2008, Considering Clause four. 3 Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein. Competence. Judgment of September 24, 1999. Series C No. 54, para. 37; Case of Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community, supra note 1, Considering clause six and Case of Raxcacó Reyes. supra note 2, Considering clause forty-three.

Select target paragraph3