-73. That, pursuant to Article 68(1) of the American Convention, “[t]he States Parties to the Convention undertake to comply with the judgment of the Court in any case to which they are parties.” For such purpose, States are required to guarantee implementation of the Court’s rulings at domestic level.1 4. That, given the final and not-subject-to-appeal nature of the Court’s judgments, as established in Article 67 of the American Convention, said judgments are to be promptly and fully complied with by the State. 5. That the obligation to comply with the judgments of the Court conforms to a basic principle of the law of the international responsibility of States, as supported by international case law, under which States are required to comply with their international treaty obligations in good faith (pacta sunt servanda) and, as previously held by the Court and provided for in Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969, States cannot invoke their municipal laws to escape their preestablished international responsibility.2 The treaty obligations of the States Parties are binding on all States powers and organs. 6. That the States Parties to the American Convention are required to guarantee compliance with the provisions thereof and secure their effects (effet utile) at the domestic level. This principle applies not only in connection with the substantive provisions of human rights treaties (i.e. those dealing with the protected rights) but also in connection with procedural rules, such as the ones concerning compliance with the decisions of the Court. Such obligations are to be interpreted and enforced in a manner such that the protected guarantee is truly practical and effective, considering the special nature of human rights treaties.3 7. That the States Parties to the American Convention that have accepted the binding jurisdiction of the court are under a duty to fulfill the obligations set by the Court. In this regard, Guatemala is required to take such measures as may be necessary in order to effectively comply with the Judgment on the merits and reparations delivered by the Court on June 20, 2005 (supra Having Seen clause No. 1). This obligation includes the State’s duty to report on the measures adopted to comply with such decisions of the Court. Timely fulfillment of the State’s obligation to report to the Court on the exact manner in which it is complying with each of the aspects ordered by the latter is essential to evaluate the status of compliance in this case.4 1 Cf. Case of the “Five Pensioners”. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment, Considering clause No. 3; Case of Bámaca-Velásquez. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment, Considering clause No. 3, and Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute”. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment, Considering clause No. 3. 2 Cf. Case of the “Five Pensioners”. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment, supra note 1, Considering clause No. 7; Case of Bámaca-Velásquez. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment, supra note 1, Considering clause No. 5, and Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute”, supra note 1, Considering clause No. 5. 3 Cf. Case of the “Five Pensioners”. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment, supra note 1, Considering clause No. 8; Case of Bámaca-Velásquez. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment, supra note 1, Considering clause No. 6, and Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute”, supra note 1, Considering clause No. 6. Cf. Case of Bámaca-Velásquez. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment, supra note 1, Considering clause No. 7. 4