end, States must ensure implementation of the Court's decisions in the domestic sphere.1 4. The obligation to comply with the Court's judgments conforms to a basic principle of the international responsibility of the State, supported by international jurisprudence, under which States must abide by their international treaty obligations in good faith (pacta sunt servanda) and, as set forth by this Court and in Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969, “a party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty.”2 The treaty obligations of State Parties are binding on all powers and organs of the State. 5. The States Parties to the Convention must ensure compliance with its provisions and their effectiveness (effet utile) within their respective domestic legal systems. This principle applies not only to the substantive norms of human rights treaties (in other words, those that contain provisions on the protected rights), but also to procedural norms, such as those concerning compliance with the Court’s decisions. These obligations must be interpreted and applied so that the protected guarantee is truly practical and effective, bearing in mind the special nature of human rights treaties.3 6. The States Parties to the Convention that have accepted the binding jurisdiction of the Court must comply with the Court’s decisions. This includes the State’s obligation to inform the Court about the measures taken to comply with those decisions. Prompt compliance with the State's obligation to advise the Court of how it is complying with each aspect ordered by the Court is essential in order to assess the status of compliance with the judgment as a whole.4 A) Obligation to investigate the facts that originated the violations declared in the judgment, and obligation to file the appropriate disciplinary, administrative or criminal actions, according to its domestic legislation (eighth and ninth operative paragraphs of the judgment) 7. In its report of December 21, 2009, the State advised that “in order to comply with the decisions of the […] Inter-American Court, and the decisions of the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, the Human Rights Prosecutor of the Public 1 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 60; Case of Tibi v. Ecuador. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Court of March 3, 2011, considering paragraph 3, and Case of Radilla Pacheco v. United Mexican States. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Court of May 19, 2011, considering paragraph 3. Cf. International Responsibility for the Promulgation and Enforcement of Laws in Violation of the Convention (Art. 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; Case of Tibi v. Ecuador. Monitoring compliance with judgment, supra note 1, considering paragraph 4, and Case of Radilla Pacheco v. United Mexican States. Monitoring compliance with judgment, supra note 1, considering paragraph 5. 2 Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Competence. Judgment of September 24, 1999. Series C No. 54, para. 37; Case of Tibi v. Ecuador. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Court of March 3, 2011, considering paragraph 5, and Case of Radilla Pacheco v. United Mexican States. Monitoring compliance with judgment, supra note 1, considering paragraph 6. 3 Cf. Case of Barrios Altos v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Court of September 22, 2005, considering paragraph 7; Case of Garibaldi v. Brazil. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 22, 2011, considering paragraph 7, and Case of Castillo Páez v. Peru. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Court of May 19, 2011, considering paragraph 6. 4 3