3 Court’s rulings at the domestic level.2 4. That, given the final and unappealable nature of the judgments delivered by the Court, and pursuant to Article 67 of the American Convention, the Court’s Judgments must be fully complied with as soon as possible. 5. That the obligation to comply with the Court’s judgments conforms to a basic principle of the law on the international responsibility of States, as supported by international case law, under which States are required to comply with their international treaty obligations in good faith (pacta sunt servanda) and, as previously noted by the Court and provided for in Article 27 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, States cannot invoke their internal laws as a justification for failing to honor their pre-established international responsibility.3 States Parties’ obligations under the Convention bind all branches and organs of State.4 6. That the States Parties to the American Convention are required to guarantee compliance with the provisions thereof and secure 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 protected rights), but also in connection with procedural rules, such as those concerning compliance with the decisions of the Court. Such obligations must be interpreted and enforced in such a manner that the protected guarantee is truly practical and effective, bearing in mind the special nature of human rights treaties.5 7. That the States Parties to the Convention which have accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court are bound to observe the obligations set forth by the Tribunal. Such obligation includes the duty of the State to inform the Court about the steps taken to comply with the judgments delivered by the Court. Timely compliance with the State’s duty to report to the Court on how said State is complying with each of the items ordered by the Court is fundamental for assessing the degree of compliance with the judgment as a whole.6 2 Cf. Case of Baena-Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 131; Case of Herrera-Ulloa v. Costa Rica. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of July 9, 2009, Considering clause three, and Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 9, 2009, Considering clause three. 3 Cf. International Responsibility for the Promulgation and Enforcement of Laws in Violation of the Convention (Arts. 1 and 2 of the American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-14/94 of December 9, 1994, para. 35; Case of Herrera-Ulloa, supra note 2, Considering clause five, and Case of Pueblo Bello Massacre, supra note 2, Considering clause five. 4 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. Series C No. 59, Considering clause three; Case of Herrera-Ulloa, supra note 2, Considering clause five, and Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre, supra note 2, Considering clause five. 5 Cf. Case of Ivcher-Bronstein v. Peru. Competence. Judgment of September 24, 1999. Series C No. 54, para. 37; Case of Herrera-Ulloa, supra note 2, Considering clause six, and Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre, supra note 2, Considering clause six. 6 Cf. Case of Barrios Altos v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 22, 2005, Considering clause seven; Case of Herrera-Ulloa, supra note 2, Considering clause seven, and Case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 7, 2009, Considering clause seven.

Select target paragraph3