9 respective domestic laws. This principle applies not only with respect to substantive provisions of human rights treaties –that is to say, those which contain provisions on the protected rights - but also to procedural rules and regulations, such as those which refer to the compliance with the Court decisions. These obligations must be construed and applied in such a way that the protected guarantee is truly practical and efficient, taking the special nature of human rights treaties into account.4 10. That as to “the location of the out-of-wedlock children of Mr. Raúl Baigorria and the deposit of the compensatory amount awarded to them as reparations” (paragraph 86 and operative paragraphs first and third of the Reparations Judgment of August 27, 1998), the Court takes note of the deposit of the compensatory amounts in their benefit (supra Having Seen clause No. 6). Even though it is appropriate to urge the State to effect the measures agreed upon by the parties on the above mentioned transcription of November 23, 2007, as well as any other provision aimed for that matter, the Court enhances the fact that the State has already taken several measures in order to locate those children, particularly the alleged mother, yet without any positive results (supra Having Seen clause No. 6). Furthermore, the State informed that in a statement given by Mr. Ricardo Baigorria Balmaceda, brother of one of the victims, he expressed that his brother “never had a child and that he mentioned so while he was detained in the penitentiary as a justification to have access to the exits benefit" (supra Having Seen clause No. 6). On the other hand, the State expressed that, in its opinion, these people do not exist (supra Considering Clause no. 6) and the representative said that both them in their capacity as representatives of the victims and their next of kin, and the next of kin of Mr. Baigorria, who have been examined, have stated that they were not aware of the existence of these alleged children (supra Considering Clause No. 7). 11. That with respect to the obligation to investigate the facts which led to the disappearance of Mr. Adolfo Garrido and Mr. Raúl Baigorria and the punishment of those responsible for it, according to the information contributed with, after the report submitted in August, 1996 by the Ad Hoc Investigation Commission, created by means of an Administrative Provision of the Supreme Court of Justice of Mendoza, the judge in charge of the investigation was removed from his office; some excavations have been made in order to find the remains of the victims, without any positive results, and a public reward was offered for anyone providing information on that matter; that to date no one has been accused or prosecuted; and that the proceedings required to include the records of the ad hoc Commission to the investigation in the judicial venue had commenced, a process that the State refers to as "judicialization" (supra Having Seen clause No. 6). After noticing that no effective judicial investigations have been executed, this Court can not cease to insist on the fact that the investigation must be effected through all the legal means available and that it must be oriented to determine the truth and the investigation, the pursuit and the eventual prosecution and punishment of those responsible for the facts5, especially considering that nine years have passed since the rendering of the reparations Judgment and 17 years since the facts of this case took place. Particularly, the State can not fail to 4 Cf. IACHR. Case of Ivcher-Bronstein v. Peru. Jurisdiction. Judgment of September 24, 1999. C Series No. 54, par. 37; Case of Gómez-Palomino v. Peru. Monitoring of Compliance with Judgment. Decision of October 18, 2007, Having Seen clause No. Four, and Case of García-Asto and Ramírez-Rojas, supra note 3, Having Seen clause No. seven. Cf. IACHR. Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 31, 2006. C Series No. 140, par. 143; Case of Zambrano-Vélez et al v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. C Series No. 166, par. 123, and Case of Escué-Zapata v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. C Series No. 165, par. 106. 5