3 6. The States Parties to the Convention must guarantee compliance with its provisions and its effects (effet utile) within their own domestic laws. This principle is applicable not only with regard to the substantive provisions of human rights treaties (i.e. those dealing with the protected rights) but also with regard to procedural rules, such as those 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, bearing in mind the special nature of human rights treaties.4 * ** 7. As regards the obligation to annul “the military proceedings and the effects resulting thereform” (Operative paragraph No. 8 of the Judgment on the merits, and Operative paragraphs No. 2 and 3 of the Judgment regarding the interpretation of the judgment on the merits,) the State informed that “the military proceedings instituted against Cesti-Hurtado have been annulled.” In this sense, during the private hearing held in relation to the instant case (supra Having Seen clause No. 10,) the State affirmed that it would provide the Court with a written report backed by supporting documents that prove compliance with this paragraph. Said report would refer, in particular, to “the lifting of the attachments made in several types of registries, from the public registry to the convictions and pending cases registry […]” Moreover, it noted that “in the event the Commission considers […] that the lifting should be made in any other registry [infra Considering clause No. 9] it would appreciated it if this is made known to proceed to verify the situation.” 8. In said private hearing (supra Having Seen clause No. 10,) the representatives of the victim noted that "a look at the name of Gustavo Cesti on the screen suffices [..] to see in how many proceedings, after the Court decided […] to archive them, […] and in which he was eventually acquitted, obviously in all of them, […] he had to litigate for years after this situation.” 9. During the private hearing (supra Having Seen clause No 10,) the Commission noted that even though it was undisputed "that the military proceedings were annulled and that the attachments were lifted, [..] the representatives expressed their concern about the fact that there would be some public registries showing that Cesti-Hurtado would still be subject to prosecution, i.e. that the public registries have not been updated and that it would be important that […] the State submit [information] on the measures adopted to wipe out these effects, alongside the information already furnished on the lifting of the attachments.” 10. The Court looks forward to the information and supporting documents offered by the State about compliance with this obligation. To this respect, the Court requests the State to furnish copies of the judicial decisions ordering the annulment of the military proceedings against Cesti-Hurtado, together with any supporting documents evidencing the lifting of the attachments made in the pertinent registries. 4 Cf. Case of Ivcher-Bronstein v. Peru. Competence. Judgment of September 24, 1999. Series C No. 54, para. 37; Case of the “Five Pensioners”, supra note 3, Considering clause No. 7, and Case of Ivcher-Brostein, supra note 3, Considering clause No. 6.