-12of domestic law, ignore the international responsibility already established.2 The conventional obligations of the States Parties are binding for all the powers and bodies of the State. 6. That the States Parties to the Convention must guarantee compliance of the conventional stipulations and their effects (effet utile) in the realm of their respective domestic law. This principle is applied not only in relation to the substantive norms of the human rights treaties (that is, those that include stipulations regarding the protected rights), but also in relation to procedural norms, such as those that refer to the compliance of the decisions of the Court. These obligations must be interpreted and applied in such a way that the protected guarantee is actually practical and efficient, having present the special nature of the human rights treaties.3 7. That the States Parties to the Convention that have acknowledged the Court’s obligatory jurisdiction have the duty to comply with the obligations established by the Tribunal. In this sense, Colombia must adopt all the necessary measures in order to effectively comply with that ordered by the Court in its Judgment of July 5, 2004 (supra Consideration 1), as well as in the present Ruling on the status of compliance with the mentioned Judgment. This obligation includes the State’s duty to inform on the measures adopted for the compliance of that ordered by the Tribunal in said decisions. The timely observance of the state’s obligation to inform the Tribunal of how it is complying with each of the points ordered by the latter is essential for the evaluation of the status of compliance with the case. * * * 8. That when supervising the comprehensive compliance of the Judgment issued in the present case, and after analyzing the information provided by the State, the Commission, and by the representative on the compliance with the reparations, the Court has verified the points ordered in said Judgment that have been complied with by Colombia, as well as the reparations whose compliance is still pending. 9. That the Court has proven that Colombia has complied with: a) locating the next of kin of the victim Alberto Gómez (supra Considerations 10(h) and 11(g)), reason for which what is pending is to deliver to them the corresponding reparations (paragraph 233 of the Judgment); and Cfr. Case of Cantos. Compliance with Judgment. Ruling of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 28, 2005, fifth whereas clause; Case of Baena Ricardo et al. Compliance with Judgment. Ruling of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 28, 2005, fifth whereas clause; and Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers, Compliance with Judgment. Ruling of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of November 17, 2005, fifth Whereas clause. 2 3 Cfr. Case of Cantos. Compliance with Judgment, supra note 2, sixth Whereas clause; Case of Baena Ricardo et al., supra note 2, sixth Whereas clause; and Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers. Compliance with Judgment, supra note 2, sixth Whereas clause. Similarly, cfr., inter alia, Case of YATAMA. Judgment of June 23, 2005. Series C No. 127, para. 170; Case of the Indigenous Community Yakye Axa. Judgment of June 17, 2005. Series C No. 125, para. 101; and Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters. Judgment of March 1, 2005. Series C No. 120, para. 64.