responsibility. 4 The treaty obligations of State Parties are binding on all branches and bodies of the State. 5 5. The States Parties to the Convention must ensure compliance with its conventional provisions and their effectiveness (effet utile) within their respective domestic legal systems. This principle applies not only to the substantive provisions of human rights treaties (that is, those addressing protected rights), but also to procedural provisions, such as those concerning compliance with the Court’s decisions. These obligations should 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. 6 A. Information submitted by the representatives regarding the measures of reparation still pending compliance 6. The representatives reported that on April 25, 2012, the President of the Republic introduced a bill to the National Assembly to amend the Electoral Act No. 331. This initiative was approved, and published on May 23, 2012 in the Official Gazette, as Act No. 790, “Amendment to Act No. 331, Electoral Act.” According to the representatives, this reform modified 25 articles of the Electoral Act related to the following topics: “integration of polling stations, the rights of political parties to appoint prosecutors, the delivery of identity cards, the registration of citizens in the electoral roll, the debugging and publication of the electoral roll, [and] the requirements for political parties to obtain legal status, among others.” However, “none of the reformed articles refer[red] to what was ordered by the Court.” Consequently, the electoral regulations that were found to be in violation by this Court remain in place. Moreover, the representatives referred to alleged specific cases which demonstrate the consequences of the failure of the State to comply with the reparations ordered by the Court in relation to the legal reforms. 7. The representatives further expressed their concern in regard to the failure to comply with the obligation to publish the Judgment, whose implementation would not present much difficulty. They indicated that it is clear that the mere passage of time impacts the effectiveness of the measure and makes it increasingly difficult for indigenous communities to retain and fully understand it. In this regard, they noted that “for this measure to comply with the purpose of redressing the victims, it is necessary for there to be direct coordination between the State, the victims, and their representatives to establish the appropriateness of its implementation, especially to verify the proper translation to the Miskito, Rama, Sumo and English languages, as well as to determine the hours and stations through which it should be transmitted,” given that “unilateral, mechanical, and executive actions on the part of the State could modify the nature of the measure and render it ineffective.” Lastly, the representatives argued that, in regards to the moratorium interest accrued for default on 4 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. Series A No. 14, para. 35, and Case of Abrill Alosilla et al. V. Perú. Monitoring of Compliance of Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 22, 2013, Considering clause 4. 5 Cf. Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. V. Perú. Monitoring of Compliance of Judgment. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of November 17, 1999, Considering clause 3, and Case of Abrill Alosilla et al. V. Perú. Monitoring of Compliance of Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 22, 2013, Considering clause 4. 6 Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein V. Perú. Jurisdiction. Judgment of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 24, 1999. Series C No. 54, para. 37, and Case of Abrill Alosilla et al. V. Perú. Monitoring of Compliance of Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 22, 2013, Considering clause 5. 4