-73. That Article 68(1) of the American Convention stipulates that “[t]he States Parties to the Convention undertake to comply with the judgment of the Court in any case to which they are parties.” To this end, the States must ensure the implementation of the Court’s rulings at the domestic level.1 4. That, in view of the final and unappealable character of the judgments of the Court, as established in Article 67 of the American Convention, they should be complied with fully and promptly by the State. 5. That the obligation to comply with the decisions in the Court’s judgments corresponds to a basic principle of the law of the international responsibility of the State, supported by international case law, according to which, a State must comply with its international treaty obligations in good faith (pacta sunt servanda) and, as this Court has already indicated and as established in Article 27 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 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 States Parties are binding on all State powers and organs. 6. That 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 shall 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 7. That the States Parties to the Convention that have accepted the Court’s compulsory jurisdiction must comply with the obligations established by the Court. In this regard, Colombia must adopt all necessary measures to comply effectively with the decisions of the Court in the judgment of July 5, 2004 (supra Having seen paragraph 1), as well as in this Order on the status of compliance with that judgment. This obligation includes the State’s duty to report on the measures adopted to comply with the rulings of the Court in that judgment. The prompt implementation of the State’s obligation to report to the Court on how each element ordered by the Court is being complied with is essential to assess the status of compliance in the case.4 * 1 Cf. Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community. Compliance with judgment. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of February 2, 2007, second considering paragraph; Case of Yatama. Compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 29, 2006 third considering paragraph; and Case of Cesti Hurtado. Compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 22, 2006, third considering paragraph. 2 Cf. Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community. Compliance with Judgment, supra note 1, third considering paragraph; Case of Yatama. Compliance with Judgment supra note 1, fifth considering paragraph; and Case of Cesti Hurtado, Compliance with Judgment, supra note 1, seventh considering paragraph. 3 Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community. Compliance with Judgment, supra note 1, fourth considering paragraph; Case of Yatama. Compliance with Judgment, supra note 1, sixth considering paragraph; and Case of Cesti Hurtado, Compliance with Judgment supra note 1, eighth considering paragraph. OAS General Assembly, Resolution AG/RES. 2292 (XXXVII-O/07) adopted at the fourth plenary session held on June 5, 2007, entitled: “Observations and Recommendations on the Annual Report of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.” 4