-6- case to which they are parties.” The treaty obligations of States Parties are binding on all State powers and organs. 7. That the obligation to comply with the judgment of the Court conforms to a basic principle of the Law of International Responsibility of States, upheld by international case law, under which States must comply with their international treaty obligations in good faith (pacta sunt servanda) and, as previously held by this 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 Otherwise, the rights enshrined in the American Convention would be devoid of effective protection or effet utile under the domestic law of States Parties. * * * 8. That, in accordance with the Orders of the Court of August 30, 2004 (supra Having Seen clause No. 1) and July 4, 2006 (supra Having Seen clause No. 4), the State is under the obligation to adopt all “measures necessary” to protect the life of Bernardino Rodríguez-Lara and Pablo Arturo Ruiz-Almengor so as to avoid hindering the proceedings before the Inter-American Human Rights Protection System. 9. That the information provided by the State, which was not disputed by the representatives or the Commission, indicates that on February 15, 2005, the Corte Suprema de Justicia (Guatemalan Supreme Court of Justice) ordered the “temporary stay” of the execution of the death sentences imposed on Messrs. Rodríguez-Lara and Ruiz-Almengor (supra Having Seen clauses No. 5 and 7). 10. That, in relation to the aforesaid temporary stay, the Commission stated that in order to ensure compliance with the order of the Court, the courts in charge of criminal sentence execution should adopt the relevant provisional measures by means of court orders. In addition, the representatives pointed out that the appeals for review filed in the criminal proceedings brought against Ruiz-Almengor and Rodríguez-Lara in order to have their death sentences reversed, and a new sentence issued, imposing punishment “proportional to the nature and severity of the offense,” are still pending (supra Having Seen clauses No. 6 and 8). 11. That, in the opinion of this Court, the obligation of the State is to be interpreted and enforced in a manner such that the protected guarantee is truly practical and effective, bearing in mind the specific purpose of such measures, which, in the instant case, is to protect the life of the beneficiaries. 12. That the States may decide, in accordance with their respective domestic law, the best way to comply with the measures ordered by the Court, on the understanding that it would be inadmissible to subject the mechanism provided for in the American 3 Cf. Case of Yatama. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 29, 2006, Considering clause No. 5; Case of Cesti-Hurtado. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 22, 2006, Considering clause No. 7; and Case of Ricardo Canese. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 22, 2006, Considering clause No. 6.