6. 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 is applicable not only with regard to the substantive norms of human rights treaties (that is, those which contain provisions concerning the protected rights), but also with regard to procedural norms, such as those referring to compliance with the decisions of the Court. These obligations shall be interpreted and applied so that the protected guarantee is truly practical and effective, bearing in mind the special nature of human rights treaties.4 7. The States Parties to the Convention that have accepted the Court’s compulsory jurisdiction must comply with the obligations established by the Court. This duty includes the State’s obligation to inform the Court on the measures adopted to comply with the decisions taken by the Court in the said judgments. Prompt observance of the State’s obligation to inform the Court of how it is complying with each aspect ordered by the latter is essential in order to assess the status of compliance with the Judgment as a whole.5 8. Pursuant to the third operative paragraph of the Order of the Court of June 28, 2012 (supra having seen paragraph 2), in this Order, the Court will evaluate the following aspects that remain pending: (a) compliance with the third payment to the heirs of two victims, Mario Pino and Ricardo Rivera; (b) compliance with the fourth payment to three victims (César De Obaldia, Luis Osorio and David Jaen Marin), and will also refer to: (c) other aspects related to compliance with the Judgment that the parties have mentioned to the Court. a) Third payment to the heirs of two victims 9. In its Order of February 22, 2011, the Court indicated that the third payment to the heirs of two deceased victims was pending, because the official ruling on their status as heirs was awaited; consequently, the State was asked to provide the corresponding information.6 However, owing to the absence of information from the State and the representatives, in its Order of June 28, 2012, the Inter-American Court again requested the State to forward the pertinent explanations or, if appropriate, the vouchers confirming the third payment to the heirs of the said victims.7 10. In August 2012, the State advised that Mario Pino, one of the victims regarding whom the Court had requested the voucher confirming the third payment to his heirs, “is 1994. Series A No. 14, para. 35, and Case of Barrios Altos v. Peru. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Court of September 7, 2012, fourth considering paragraph. 3 Cf. Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Court of November 17, 1999, third considering paragraph, and Case of Barrios Altos v. Peru. Order of the Court of September 7, 2012, fourth considering paragraph. 4 Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Jurisdiction. Judgment of September 24, 1999, Series C No. 54, para. 37, and Case of Vargas Areco v. Paraguay. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Court of September 4, 2012, fifth considering paragraph. 5 Cf. Case of Barrios Altos v. Peru. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Court of September 22, 2005, seventh considering paragraph, and Case of Salvador Chiriboga v. Ecuador. Order of the Court of October 24, 2012, third considering paragraph. 6 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Court of February 22, 2011, fourteenth and fifteenth considering paragraphs. 7 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Court of June 28, 2012, twenty-fourth considering paragraph. 3