11 8. […] the need for states parties to provide, in a timely fashion, the information requested by the Court in order to enable it to fully meet its obligation to report to the General Assembly on compliance with its judgments. 7. That the obligation to comply with the judgments of the Court conforms to a basic principle of the law of 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 held by the Court and provided for in Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969, States may not invoke the provisions of its internal law to escape their pre-established international responsibility.3 The treaty obligations of States Parties are binding on all State powers and organs. 8. That the States Parties to the Convention are required to guarantee compliance with the provisions thereof and their effects (effet utile) at the domestic level. 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 9. That the State’s reports point out that a number of official letters have been sent to various domestic authorities in order to advance compliance with the Judgments of the court in this case. That the Court acknowledges that in every judgment compliance process several state authorities are involved, each having its own procedures, laws and rules; however, this international Court examines and assesses compliance with its orders, rather than the steps taken by one agency or official or those that must yet be taken by another. Taking into account the foregoing and weighing up the procedures undertaken by certain domestic government agencies, this Court notes that, in spite of the time elapsed (over five years), the Judgment ordering reparations in the instant case has not yet been fully complied with. 10. That the State has reported on several occasions (supra Having Seen clauses No. 6 and 12) that it has requested the computation of the interest on the compensation for moral damage, and that such calculation has been made and referred to the Court by the State itself. In spite of that, the debt has not yet been paid off and the victim and his next of kin are still awaiting payment. 11. That pursuant to paragraph 78 of the Judgment on reparations in the instant case (supra Having Seen clause No. 3), if a State falls in arrears, as it is the case here, it shall pay “interest on the sum owed at a rate equal to bank default interest rates in Peru.” 3 Cf. Case of the “Five Pensioners”. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of July 4, 2006, Considering clause No. 7; Case of Bámaca-Velásquez. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 4, 2006, Considering clause No. 5; Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute”. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 4, 2006, Considering clause No. 5. 4 Cf. Case of the “Five Pensioners”. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of July 4, 2006, Considering clause No. 8; Case of Bámaca-Velásquez. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 4, 2006, Considering clause No. 6; Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute”. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 4, 2006, Considering clause No. 6.