5. The obligation to comply with the Tribunal's rulings conforms to a basic principle of international law, supported by international jurisprudence, under which States must abide by their international treaty obligations in good faith (pacta sunt servanda) 6. The States Parties to the Convention must ensure compliance with its conventional provisions and their effectiveness (effet utile) within their respective domestic legal systems. This principle applies not only to the substantive provisions of human rights treaties (i.e., those addressing protected rights), but also to procedural provisions, such as those concerning compliance with the Court’s decisions. These obligations should be interpreted and enforced in such a manner that the protected guarantee is truly practical and effective, bearing in mind the special nature of human rights treaties.2 7. In accordance with the reparation measures ordered in the Judgment, the Court will now examine the measures adopted by the State to comply with the Judgment, as well as the comments of the representative of the victims and the Inter-American Commission in this regard. A. Obligation to pay the compensation awarded as non-pecuniary damages and costs and expenses (Operative Paragraph 17 of the Judgment) 8. The State reported that it had fulfilled its obligation to pay USD 2,000.00 (two thousand dollars of the United States of America) “directly to each one of the victims.” Moreover, it noted that it had paid USD 20,000.00 (twenty thousand dollars of the United States of America) directly to the Association of Discharged and Retired Employees of the Office of the Comptroller of the Republic (hereinafter the "Association of Discharged and Retired Employees") as reimbursement for costs and expenses. Furthermore, the State provided copies of the payment orders issued by the Comptroller of the Republic on December 2 and 3, 2009 in favor of the victims of the present case or their heirs, as well as the payment order issued on February 10, 2010 to the Association of Discharged and Retired Employees of the Office of the Comptroller, in regard to the quantity ordered as reimbursement for costs and expenses. According to the information presented, the corresponding payments were made by way of cashier’s checks in the name of each one of the victims or, where necessary, their heirs, and in the name of the Association of Discharged and Retired Employees, or through direct transfers to their personal accounts. 9. The representative confirmed “as accurate” that indicated by the State concerning the payment of non-pecuniary damages and costs and expenses, and that Peru had fulfilled this reparation measure. 10. The Inter-American Commission noted that the documentation provided by the State “is consistent with the aforementioned payments, wherein the amounts correspond to that provided for in the Judgment.” As such, it is of the opinion that "it should be deemed that the State has satisfied this aspect of the Judgment." 11. The Court recalls that in its Judgment it ordered the State to pay USD 2.000,00 (two thousand dollars of the United States of America) as compensation for non-pecuniary damages to each of the 273 victims in the present case. This compensation should be paid 2 Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Competence. Judgment of September 24, 1999. Series C No. 54, para. 37; Case of Tiu Tojín v. Guatemala, supra note 1, Considering Clause 5, and Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico, supra note 1, Considering Clause 6.