5 6. That the States Parties to the American Convention are required to guarantee compliance with the provisions thereof and secure their effects (effet utile) at the domestic law level. This principle applies not only in connection with the substantive provisions of human rights treaties (i.e. those dealing with the protected rights), but also in connection with procedural rules, such as those concerning compliance with the decisions of the Court. Such obligations are to be interpreted and enforced in a manner such that the protected guarantee is truly practical and effective, considering the special nature of human rights treaties.4 * * * 7. That in its Order of November 17, 2004, the Court urged the State to take all necessary steps to fully and promptly complied with the measures pending compliance and, to that end, it deemed it essential to keep open the proceedings for monitoring compliance with its Judgment (supra Having Seen clause 3). * * * 8. That in relation to operative paragraph one of the Judgment regarding the investigation, identification and, if applicable, punishment of those responsible for the facts, the State submitted information on the investigations conducted in the Caracazo proceedings and pointed out that most of them were expedited in 2001. Specifically, it referred to the adoption of various steps in the different criminal proceedings, such as, inter alia, the criminal charges brought (in both cases), the requests for information regarding the preliminary and investigative stages of the proceedings, the remittance of official letters to State agencies, the remittance of medical and dental histories, the service of summonses to the victims’ next of kin and to the witnesses, an arrest warrant, the meetings held with the victims’ next of kin and with the witnesses and the request for elements such as photographs and medical histories to the victims’ next of kin. Furthermore, it pointed out that the Public Prosecutors’ Offices commissioned to investigate, proceeded with the pertinent investigations. At the private hearing, the State did not refer to any further progress in the investigations regarding these cases, but reaffirmed its commitment to advance towards achieving it. Besides, regarding a case in which in 2006 the Chamber on Constitutional Matters of the Supreme Court of Justice (hereinafter the “Constitutional Chamber”)5 ratified the discontinuance of the case on 4 Cf. Case of Ivcher-Bronstein v. Peru. Competence. Judgment of September 24, 1999. Series C No. 54, para. 37; Case of Cantoral-Huamaní and García-Santa Cruz v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment, supra note 1, Considering clause 6; and Case of Chaparro-Álvarez and Lapo-Íñiguez v. Ecuador. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment, supra note 1, Considering clause 6. 5 In said Judgment, the Chamber on Constitutional Matters of the Supreme Court of Justice in its relevant parts “revok[ed] the Judgment of August 13, 2004, rendered by Chamber Nº 10 of the Court of Appeals of Caracas Metropolitan Area Criminal Judicial Circuit, which admitted the appeal filed against the Judgment of July 16, 2004, delivered by the Thirty-third Control Court of the First Instance of the same Criminal Judicial Circuit, which declared the discontinuance of the criminal proceeding brought by citizen Pedro Colmenares-Gómez.”