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.4 a) Obligation to investigate the facts and to punish those responsible 7. In its report of June 2010, Venezuela indicated that the Public Prosecutor’s Office had determined “the relevance of reopening the investigation […] noting, first, that procedures remain to be conducted which may result in relevant information that the Prosecutor was unaware of when deciding to close the proceedings; and this represents a fresh opportunity […] to achieve the complete clarification of the events investigated and, ultimately, would lead to judicial proceedings that are strictly in accordance with the procedural principles established in our domestic and international law.” In addition, the State advised that, among other measures, the Public Prosecutor’s Office had requested information from various agencies on the migratory movements, address, criminal record, and police and banking records of certain individuals, and also the expert appraisal of several elements. Lastly, Venezuela indicated that the Public Prosecutor’s Office “will continue to conduct the procedures that it considers […] pertinent, in order to […] attribute the corresponding responsibilities in this case.” 8. The representatives affirmed that, in its report, the State had failed to indicate the dates on which the Public Prosecutor’s Office had sent out the requests for information or when it expected to obtain a response; also, it did not attach copies of these communications. Furthermore, it did not indicate the cost of some of the appraisals requested, or provide information on the results obtained, or the date on which they could expect to obtain them. They noted that the State had indicated that procedures remain to be conducted, but it did not mention what these procedures are, when they would be conducted, and which State institution would be responsible for conducting them. In addition, they indicated that Venezuela had not forwarded the timetable requested in the order of February 4, 2010, or any other information requested in this order. They considered that the report submitted by the State did not comply with the requirements indicated in this decision. 9. Additionally, the representatives indicated that, despite the requests they have made to the State, they have “not been consulted or informed about the progress of the investigations at any stage of the proceedings.” Moreover, they observed that the State’s report only referred to the investigation of three individuals, “although the State [...] has information identifying other individuals who are responsible.” Venezuela must remove all the obstacles to establishing responsibilities and imposing punishments on both the perpetrators and the masterminds, and must investigate all those responsible. They indicated that, in 2009, progress had been made in the investigation of other similar massacres, in which the Prosecutor General had summoned the victims, family members, and representatives to meetings and 4 Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Competence. Judgment of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 24, 1999. Series C No. 54, para. 37, and Case of Gutiérrez Soler v. Colombia, supra note 1, fourth considering paragraph. 3