-4case to which they are parties.” The treaty obligations of the States Parties are binding for all the powers and organs of the States.2 4. That, in view of the final and non-appealable character of the judgments of the Court, as established in Article 67 of the American Convention, they should be complied with fully and promptly. 5. That in its Resolution AG/RES. 2223 (XXXVI-O/06),3 the General Assembly of the OAS reiterated— […] the need for states parties to provide, in a timely fashion, the information requested by the Court in order to enable it to fully meet its obligation to report to the General Assembly on compliance with its judgments. 6. That the obligation to comply with the decisions of 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.4 The treaty obligations of the States Parties are binding for all the powers and organs of the State. 7. 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.5 8. That by Order of February 2, 2006, inter alia the Court ordered the State to submit to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, not later than May 24, 2006, a report describing all the measures adopted to fulfill the reparations ordered under the Court’s judgment, and stated— 2 Cf. Case of the “Five Pensioners”. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of July 4, 2006; Considering clause No. 3; Case of the Constitutional Court. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 7, 2006; Considering clause No. 3; and Case of the 19 Tradesmen. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 2, 2006; Considering clause No. 3. Resolution adopted at the fourth plenary session, held on June 6, 2004, entitled “Observations and Recommendations on the Annual Report of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights”, Operative paragraph No. 4. 3 4 Cf. Case of the “Five Pensioners”. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment, supra note 2, Considering clause No. 7; Case of the Constitutional Court. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment, supra note 2, Considering clause No. 5; and Case of the 19 Tradesmen. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment, supra note 2, Considering clause No. 5. 5 Cf. Case of the “Five Pensioners”. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment, supra note 2, Considering clause No. 8; Case of the Constitutional Court. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment, supra note 2, Considering clause No. 6; and Case of the 19 Tradesmen. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment, supra note 2, Considering clause No. 6.