domestically.1 4. Given the judgments of the Court are final and definitive, in accordance with Article 67 of the American Convention, they shall be promptly and fully complied with by the State.2 5. The duty to comply with that established in the decisions of the Tribunal corresponds to a basic principle of the law of international responsibility of the State, supported by international jurisprudence; according to which the States shall fulfill their international treaty obligations in good faith (pacta sunt servanda) and, as put forth by this Court and under Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969, they cannot, for internal reasons, stop assuming the international responsibility already established.3 The treaty obligations of States Parties are binding on all State bodies and organs.4 6. The State Parties to the Convention shall guarantee compliance with treaty dispositions and effet utile within their respective domestic law. This principle is applied, not only regarding substantive rules of human rights treaties (namely, the ones that contain dispositions regarding the protected rights), but also in relation to procedural norms, such as those concerning compliance with decisions of the Court. These obligations shall be interpreted and applied within their respective domestic law. This principle applies, not only to the substantive rules of human rights treaties (namely, those containing dispositions on protected rights), but also regarding procedural norms, such as those referring to compliance with the decisions of the Court. These obligations shall be interpreted and applied in such a manner that the protected guarantee is truly practical and effective, taking into account the special nature of human rights treaties5. a) Obligation to nullify the judgment issued on November 12, 1999, by the Criminal Court of the First Circuit of San Jose 7. Regarding the obligation to nullify, in every respect, the judgment issued on November 12, 1999, by the Criminal Tribunal of the First Judiciary Circuit of San Jose 1 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo and others v. Panama. Competence Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, paragraph 131; Case of Ivcher Bronstein vs. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Court of August 27, 2010, Considering Clause three, and Case of Santander Tristán Donoso vs. Panama. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Court of September 1, 2010, Considering Clause three. 2 Cf. Case of De la Cruz Flores v. Peru. Supervision of Compliance of Judgment. Order of the Court of September 1, 2010, Considering Clause four, and Case of Santander Tristán Donoso, supra note 1, Considering Clause four. 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, par. 35; Case of Baena Ricardo and others, supra note 2, Considering Clause five, and Case of Vargas Areco, supra note 2, Considering Clause four. 3 4 Cf. Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of November 17, 1999, Considering Clause three; Case of Ivcher Bronstein, supra note 1, Considering Clause four, and Case of Santander Tristán Donoso, supra note 1, Considering Clause five. 5 Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Competence. Judgment of September 24, 1999, Series C No. 54, paragraph. 37; Case of De la Cruz Flores, supra note 2, Considering Clause six, and Case of Santander Tristán Donoso, supra note 1, Considering Clause six.