2 2. Mexico has been a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” or “the American Convention”) since March 24, 1981, and accepted the binding jurisdiction of the Court on December 16, 1998. 3. As established in Article 67 of the American Convention, the State must comply with the judgments of the Court fully and promptly. 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.” To this end, the State must ensure implementation of the Court’s decisions in its judgments at the domestic level.1 4. The obligation to comply with the decisions in the Court’s judgments corresponds to a basic principle of international law, supported by international case law, according to which, States must comply with their 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, they may not invoke the provisions of their domestic law as justification for their failure to abide by their pre-established international responsibilities. The treaty obligations of the States Parties are binding for all the powers and organs of the State.2 5. 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.3 6. The States Parties to the Convention that have accepted the Court’s binding jurisdiction must comply with the obligations established by the Court. This obligation includes the duty of the State to advise the Court of the measures adopted to comply with the decisions of the Court in its judgments. Prompt observance of the State obligation to inform the Court of the manner in which it is complying with each aspect ordered by the Court is essential in order to assess the status of compliance with the judgment as a whole.4 7. The State advised that, on July 1, 2008, “the ‘Decree amending, adding to or annulling various provisions of the Organic Law of the Judiciary of the Federation and of the General Law on the procedure for filing challenges concerning electoral matters’ was published in the Federal Official Gazette.” These changes make it possible, inter alia, for any Chamber of the Electoral Court of the Federal Judiciary to determine the non-application of 1 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 60, and Case of Chitay Nech et al. v. Guatemala. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights December 1, 2011, third considering paragraph. 2 Cf. International Responsibility for the Promulgation and Enforcement of Laws in Violation of the Convention (Arts. 1 and 2 American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-14/94 of December 9, 1994. Series A No. 14, para. 35, and Case of Chitay Nech et al. v. Guatemala, supra note 1, fourth considering paragraph. 3 Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Competence. Judgment of November 24, 1999, Series C No. 54, para. 37, and Case of Chitay Nech et al. v. Guatemala, supra note 1, fifth considering paragraph. 4 Cf. Case of Barrios Altos. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 22, 2005, seventh considering paragraph, and Case of Chitay Nech et al. v. Guatemala, supra note 1, sixth considering paragraph.