basic principle of the law on the international responsibility of the State, supported by international case law, according to which States must comply with their international treaty obligations in good faith (pacta sunt servanda) and, as previously indicated by the Court and established in Article 27 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a State may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty.3 The treaty-based obligations of the State Parties are binding on all the powers and organs of the State.4 6. The States Parties to the Convention must ensure compliance with its provisions and their inherent effects (effet utile) within their respective domestic legal systems. This principle is applicable not only with regard to the substantive norms of human rights treaties (that is, those which contain provisions concerning the protected rights), but also with regard to procedural norms, such as those referring to compliance with the decisions of the Court. 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.5 7. The States Parties to the Convention that have accepted the Court’s compulsory jurisdiction must comply with the obligations established by the Court. This obligation includes the State’s duty to inform the Court of the measures taken to abide by the rulings of the Court in the said decisions. Prompt compliance by the State with its obligation to advise the Court of how it is fulfilling each aspect ordered by the latter is essential for assessment of the status of compliance with the Judgment as a whole.6 A) To publish operative paragraphs 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 of the Judgment (fifth operative paragraph of the Judgment) 8. Regarding the fifth operative paragraph, which relates to the State’s obligation to publish operative paragraphs 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 of the Judgment in the newspaper, “El Comercio,” “referring to the publication of March 3, 2010, and clarifying that, on that occasion, the said paragraphs were omitted,”7 the State advised that it had published the said operative paragraphs on March 16, 2011, “in a newspaper with widespread circulation.” The State attached a copy of the publication of operative paragraphs 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 of the Judgment to its communication of December 13, 2012, and this confirms that the publication was made on March 16, 2011, in the newspaper, “El Comercio.” 9. Regarding the operative paragraphs, pending publication, in her brief of January 17, 2013, Mrs. Cornejo indicated that the publication of the operative paragraphs was made in 3 Cf. International Responsibility for the Promulgation and Enforcement of Laws in Violation of the Convention (Arts. 1 and 2 American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-14/94 of December 9, 1994. Series A No. 14, para. 35, and Case of Barrios Altos v. Peru. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Court of September 7, 2012, fourth considering paragraph. 4 Cf. Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Court of November 17, 1999, third considering paragraph, and Case of Barrios Altos v. Peru, supra, fourth considering paragraph. 5 Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Competence. Judgment of September 24, 1999. Series C No. 54, para. 37, and Case of Barrios Altos v. Peru, supra, fifth considering paragraph. 6 Cf. Case of Barrios Altos v. Peru. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Court of September 22, 2005, seventh considering paragraph, and Case of Salvador Chiriboga v. Ecuador, supra, third considering paragraph. 7 Case of Albán Cornejo et al. v. Ecuador. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Court of August 27, 2010, tenth considering paragraph. 3