5 6. That 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 applies not only in connection with the substantive provisions of human rights treaties (i.e. those dealing with provisions on protected rights) but also in connection with procedural rules, such as the ones concerning compliance with the decisions of the Court. Such obligations are intended to be interpreted and enforced in a manner such that the protected guarantee is truly practical and effective, taking into account the special nature of human rights treaties.6 * * * Regarding the State's request not to include, as beneficiaries of reparations, two persons declared victims in the Judgment 7. That in the brief of April 11, 2007 the State communicated that, according to information gathered through the investigations conducted by the Attorney General's Office, two persons, who were declared victims in the Judgment, Messrs. Omar Patiño Vaca and Eliécer Martínez Vaca, would have not died or disappeared between the days of July 15 and 20, 1997 in Mapiripán, but on a later date 7. The State alleged that said information, gathered after the delivery of the Judgment, “render the reparations ordered in favor of [the] next-of-kin [of the people named] in the judgment, ineffective, considering that their death is not attributable to the State and therefore, the compliance with the reparations in favor of the next-of-kin would imply unjust enrichment”. Therefore, the State requested the Court “in the exercise of its inherent, unofficial and permanent role, to adjudge and declare what may correspond in this situation and in relation to the reparations in favor of the next-ofkin of these two people”. At the hearing, the State reasserted its position and its request to study the documents presented in order to declare that they are not victims under the terms of the Judgment, or beneficiaries of the measures of reparations and it also mentioned, in its last report, that “should the Court does not deal with the merits of the case, it would allow for a situation, which is not in accordance with the Convention, to carry on”. 8. That the representatives acknowledge that “there are legitimate doubts as to whether Messrs. Omar Patiño Vaca and Eliécer Martínez Vaca were really victims of the Mapiripán Massacre”, though the evidence furnished by the State is not December 9, 1994, Series A Nº.14, para. 35; Case of Gómez Palomino V. Peru, supra note 4, considering clause 5 and Case of the Dismissed Congressional Employees (Aguado Alfaro et al.) V. Peru, supra note 4, considering clause 4. 6 Cf. Case of Ivcher Human rights of September note 4, considering clause Monitoring Compliance with clause 6. Bronstein V. Peru. Competence. Judgment of the Inter-American Court of 24, 1999. Series C Nº 54, para. 37; case of Gómez Palomino V. Peru, supra 6; and Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community V. Paraguay, the Judgment. Order of the Court’s President of May 20, 2009; considering 7 The State furnished, as evidence of this argument, a report of October 14, 1999 of the Police Inspection Unit of the Municipality of Mapiripán, indicating that Messr. Eliécer Martínez Vaca would have died in La Cooperative on February 21, 1998. This report would have been found on a judicial inspection conducted on January 13, 2005 at the premises of the Ombudsman Office of Pueblo Regional del Meta. Moreover, it furnished a body removal record of December 21, 1998 (illegible document), a statement rendered by Mrs. Delfina Vaca as internal displaced person of August 2002, a report of November 17, 2005 from a prosecutor of the Human Rights Unit, indicating that "the investigation determined that the murder of Eliécer [Martínez Vaca] and the disappearance of Omar [Patiño Vaca] occurred on February 23, 1999 and April 2002, respectively". Besides, the State referred to alleged statements of people who requested to remain unidentified, which it did not furnish.