responsibility.2 The State Parties’ obligations under the Convention bind all State branches and organs. 3 5. The States Parties to the American Convention are required to guarantee compliance with the provisions thereof and to 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 (that is, those dealing with provisions of 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 actually practical and effective, considering the special nature of human rights treaties. 4 A) Regarding the obligation to reinstate Mrs. Loayza Tamayo in the teaching sector in public institutions, on the understanding that the amount of her salary and other benefits shall be equal to the remuneration she was receiving for these activities in the public and private sectors at the time of her detention (Operative paragraph one of the Judgment) 6. The State reported that in regard to the reinstatement in the teaching sector of the Ministry of Education, Mrs. Loayza Tamayo and the representative of the Local Educational Services Unit No. 2 signed an Act of Agreement on April 7, 2008, in order to “carry out the severance payments for the lost income” of the victim, noting that “the first severance payment was made in the national currency.” Regarding the reinstatement in the teaching sector at the National School of Dramatic Arts, the State noted that by means of the Reinstatement Act signed by the representative of the Assistant Manager’s Office of the National Institute of Culture, the reinstatement of Mrs. Loayza Tamayo is noted at said School as of January 18, 2002, “were she has been assigned a work day of 15 hours of class […] weekly.” Nevertheless, “by way of the Departmental Resolution No. 1417-2006-ED dated [September 20, 2006] the contract for personal services of [Mrs.] Loayza Tamayo came to an end, as of August 01, 2006.” In relation to the incorporation of [Mrs. Loayza Tamayo] to the teaching sector of a university, the State reported on the communications addressed to three universities,5 receiving negative responses from two of them-including 2 Cf. International Responsibility for the Promulgation and Enforcement of Laws in Violation of the Convention (Arts. 1 and 2 of the American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-14/94 of December 9, 1994. Series A No. 14 para. 35; Case of the “Las Dos Erres Massacre”, supra note 1, Considering clause four, and Case of Montero Aranguren et al., supra note 1, Considering clause four. 3 Cf. Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. V. Perú. Monitoring Compliance of Judgment. Order of the Court of November 17, 1999, Considering clause three; Case of the “Las Dos Erres Massacre”, supra note 1, Considering clause four, and Case of Montero Aranguren et al. (Detention Center of Catia), supra note 1, Considering clause four. 4 Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein V. Perú. Jurisdiction. Judgment of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 24, 1999. Series C No. 54, para. 37; Case of the “Las Dos Erres Massacre”, supra note 1, Considering clause five, and Case of Montero Aranguren et al. (Detention Center of Catia), supra note 1, Considering clause five. 5 Specifically, the State cited the letter s/n of April 9, 2008, by which the General Secretary of the University of San Martin de Porres said: “The Court's mandate is to target the Peruvian government, not the University of San Martin de Porres and [...] the reinstatement being ordered is for teaching service in public institutions, the university does not hold the status of a public institution, and as such, the university is not able to 3