5). Consequently, even though almost two years have elapsed since the Judgment was handed down, it can be concluded that a situation of total impunity continues to exist with regard to the violations declared in this case. 10. In this regard, the Court reiterates that, once this Court has ruled on the merits, and the reparations and costs, in a case submitted to its consideration, the State must observe the norms of the Convention that refer to compliance with the judgment or judgments 7 (supra considering paragraphs 2 and 3). The treaty-based obligations of the States Parties are binding for all the powers and organs of the State;8 in other words, for all the powers of the State (Executive, Legislative, Judicial and other branches of the public powers) and other public or State authorities of any level. All these authorities have the obligation to comply with international law. This interpretation is derived directly from the principle contained in the above-mentioned Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Furthermore, the States Parties to the Convention may not invoke provisions of constitutional law or other aspects of domestic law to justify their failure to comply with or to apply the obligations contained in the said treaty.9 11. In this regard, when the international proceedings have concluded and the judgment is handed down, the State must avoid the repetition of the conducts that gave rise to the litigation. The judgment and the reparations ordered therein should provide a new framework and a new vision that permits the problems identified to be overcome truly and promptly. Thus, it is essential that all the State’s agencies and institutions collaborate with each other, both to provide information and to take the measures that fall within their terms of reference under domestic law, in order to comply with the said reparations.10 12. The Court therefore considers it essential that the State take specific measures to make progress in compliance with its obligation to investigate the facts in order to identify, prosecute and punish, as appropriate, all those responsible for the forced disappearances of Gregoria Herminia Contreras, Serapio Cristian Contreras, Julia Inés Contreras, Ana Julia Mejía Ramírez, Carmelina Mejía Ramírez and José Rubén Rivera Rivera, as well as other related illegal acts. In addition, the State must guarantee that the authorities in charge of conducting the investigations comply with their duty in order to establish the truth about the facts and to determine the corresponding legal consequences, without requiring the 7 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 60, and Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Contentious-Administrative Court”) v. Venezuela. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 23, 2012, twenty-first considering paragraph. 8 Cf. Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of November 17, 1999, third considering paragraph, and Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Contentious-Administrative Court”) v. Venezuela. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 23, 2012, twenty-second considering paragraph. 9 Cf. International responsibility for the Promulgation and Enforcement of Laws in Violation of the Convention (Arts. 1 and 2 American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-14/94 of December 9, 1994. Series A No. 14, para. 35, and Case of Cantoral Benavides v. Peru. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 20, 2009, fifth considering paragraph. See also: General Comments adopted by the Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 31, Nature of the General Legal Obligation Imposed on States Parties to the Covenant, eightieth session, U.N. Doc. HRI/GEN/1/Rev.7 at 225 (2004), and Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Contentious-Administrative Court”) v. Venezuela. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 23, 2012, twentythird considering paragraph. 10 Cf. Case of Molina Theissen v. Guatemala. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of November 16, 2009, twenty-fourth considering paragraph, and Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters v. El Salvador. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 3, 2010, seventeenth considering paragraph. 5