3 5. The briefs submitted by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Commission” or “the Inter-American Commission”) on January 16, April 1 and June 6, 2008. CONSIDERING: 1. That monitoring compliance with its decisions is a power inherent in the judicial functions of the Court. 2. That Guatemala has been a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter, “the Convention” or “the American Convention”) since May 25, 1978, and that it accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court on March 9, 1987. 3. That the obligation to comply with the rulings of the Court reflects a basic principle of the law on 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.1 The obligations of States Parties under the Convention are binding on all powers and organs of the State. 4. That the States Parties to the Convention must guarantee compliance with the provisions thereof and their effects (effet utile) at the domestic-law level. This principle applies not only in connection with the substantive provisions of human rights treaties (in other words, those addressing the protected rights), but also in connection with the procedural provisions, such as those concerning compliance with the Court’s decisions. These 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.2 * * * 5. That, as regards to the first operative paragraph of the Judgment (supra Having Seen clause No. 1), the State expressed that, through the Special Human Rights Violation Cases Unit, the Attorney General’s Office reported that a number of steps had 1 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, para. 35; Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community v. Nicaragua. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 7, 2008, Considering clause No. 5; and Case of Claude-Reyes et al. v. Chile. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment, Order of the President in Current of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of June 10, 2008, Considering clause No. 5. 2 Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Competence. Judgment of September 24, 1999. Series C No. 54, para. 37; Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community v. Nicaragua. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment, supra note 1, Considering clause No. 6; and Case of Claude-Reyes et al. v. Chile. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment, supra note 1, Considering clause No. 6.