3 6. That the States Parties to the Convention are required to guarantee compliance with the provisions thereof and their effects (effet utile) within their own domestic laws. This principle is applicable not only to the substantive provisions of human rights treaties (i.e. those dealing with protected rights) but also 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.3 7. That the States Parties to the Convention, having once accepted the binding jurisdiction of the Court, must honor obligations set by the Court. This includes the duty of the State to inform the Court of all measures taken to comply with the orders that the Court delivers in these decisions. If the Court is to evaluate progress in complying with the overall judgment, the State must be prompt in submitting Courtordered reports on its action to discharge each of the items called for in the decision.4 * * * 8. That with regard to the obligation to secure that the domestic proceedings instituted in order to investigate and punish those responsible for the events in the instant case be operative, as set forth in Operative point 6 of the judgment, the State reported that a technical cooperation agreement was signed on November 28, 2006 between the Ministry of Justice, the Special Secretariat for Human Rights of the President of Brazil, and the National Council of Justice, the governing body of the judicial branch. The purpose of this agreement is to support the National Council of Justice in identifying, locating and monitoring judicial actions and investigations of human rights violations, with the objective of prosecuting them as expeditiously as possible. Specifically, with regard to the criminal investigation in the instant case, the State reported that on August 28, 2007, the National Council of Justice was asked to adopt all measures necessary to ensure faster progress in the criminal action for the death of Damião Ximenes Lopes. 9. That according to the representatives, even though more than eight years have passed since the death of Damião Ximenes Lopes, the perpetrators have yet to be punished and the case remains in impunity. They emphasized a "total lack of information on the progress of the criminal and civil proceedings" in the State report. The representatives also commented on the agreement with National Council of Justice. They stressed that, although it had been signed on November 28, 2006, it was not until August 28, 2007, that is, 11 days after expiration of the term granted for full 3 Cfr. I/A Court HR. Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Competence. Judgment of September 24, 1999, Series C No. 54, par. 37; I/A Court HR. Case of Cantoral Benavides v. Peru. Supervision of Compliance with Judgment, supra note 2, Considering clause 9; and I/A Court HR. Case of Caballero Delgado y Santana v. Colombia. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment, supra note 2, Considering clause 6. 4 Cfr. I/A Court HR. Case of Barrios Altos v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 22, 2005, Considering clause 7. I/A Court HR. Case of Baldeón García v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 6, 2008, Considering clause 5; and I/A Court HR. Case of Gómez Palomino v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of October 18, 2007, Considering clause 5.