3. Pursuant to Article 67 of the American Convention, the Court’s judgments shall be fully and promptly complied with by the State. 4. In addition, 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.” Therefore, States must ensure that the rulings set out in the decisions of the Court are implemented at a domestic level. 1 5. The obligation to comply with the Court’s judgments corresponds to a basic principle of International Law, as supported by international jurisprudence, under which States must comply with their international treaty obligations in good faith (pacta sunt servanda) and, as previously indicated by the Court and provided for in Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969, States cannot neglect their pre-established international responsibility due to domestic orders. 2 The States Parties’ treaty obligations bind all State powers and bodies. 3 6. The States Parties to the Convention must ensure compliance with treaty provisions and their effects (effet utile) within their respective domestic legal systems. This principle applies not only in connection with the substantive norms of human rights treaties (i.e. those addressing protected rights), but also in connection with procedural rules, such as those concerning compliance with the Court’s decisions. These obligations should be interpreted and enforced in such a manner that the protected guarantee is truly practical and effective, bearing in mind the special nature of human rights treaties. 4 7. Pursuant to the Order of the Court of December 27, 2010 (supra Having Seen 4), the State should have presented on February 2, 2011, a report that indicated: a) the steps taken and to be taken by the State in order to carry out its act of acknowledgment of international responsibility and the tentative dates of said act; and b) which legislative, administrative or other measures were adopted subsequent to the issuance of the Judgment, and in what way these regulate the procedures and requirements for acquiring Dominican nationality upon late registration of birth. a) Carrying out of a public act acknowledging international responsibility and apologizing to the victims (operative paragraph seven of the Judgment) 1 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 60; Case of “Las Dos Erres” Massacre v. Guatemala. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Court of July 6, 2011, Considering clause three, and Case of Montero Aranguren et al. (Detention Center of Catia) v. Venezuela. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Court August 30, 2011, Considering clause three. 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 “Las Dos Erres” Massacre v. Guatemala, supra note 1, Considering clause four, and Case of Montero Aranguren et al. (Detention Center of Catia) v. Venezuela, supra note 1, Considering clause four. 3 Cf. Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Perú. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Court of November 17, 1999, Considering clause three; Case of “Las Dos Erres” Massacre v. Guatemala, supra note 1, Considering clause four, and Case of Montero Aranguren et al. (Detention Center of Catia) v. Venezuela, supra note 1, Considering clause four. 4 Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Perú. Jurisdiction. Judgment of September 24, 1999. Series C No. 54, para. 37; Case of “Las Dos Erres” Massacre v. Guatemala, supra note 1, Considering clause five, and Case of Montero Aranguren et al. (Detention Center of Catia) v. Venezuela, supra note 1, Considering clause five. 3