6 4. That, in view of the final and unappealable character of the judgments of the Court, as established in Article 67 of the American Convention, the State should comply with them fully and promptly. 5. That the obligation to comply with the decisions in the Court’s judgments corresponds to a basic principle of the law of the international responsibility of the State, supported by international case law, according to which, a State must comply with its 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, a party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty.2 The treaty obligations of the States Parties are binding for all the powers and organs of the State. 6. That 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 7. That the States Parties to the American Convention that have accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court must comply with the obligations established by the Court. In this regard, Venezuela must adopt all necessary measures to comply effectively with the rulings of the Court in the judgments of January 18, 1995 (supra Having seen paragraph 1) and September 14, 1996 (supra Having seen paragraph 2). 8. That, while monitoring full compliance with the judgments on merits and reparations delivered in this case, and having examined the information provided by the parties, the Court has observed that the State has made several payments of interest on arrears (supra Having seen paragraphs 24 and 25). 9. That the representatives and the Commission have expressed their satisfaction for the payments made by the State in favor of the beneficiaries of the reparations ordered by the Court, and consider that the State has complied with this element of the judgments of the Court (supra Having seen paragraphs 21 and 22). Compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 2, 2006, third considering paragraph and Case of Ricardo Canese. Compliance with judgment. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of February 2, 2006, third considering paragraph. 2 Cf. Case of the Constitutional Court. Compliance with judgment, supra note 1, fifth considering paragraph; Case of the 19 Tradesmen. Compliance with judgment, supra note 1, fifth considering paragraph, and Case of Ricardo Canese. Compliance with judgment, supra note 1, fifth considering paragraph. 3 Cf. Case of the Constitutional Court. Compliance with judgment, supra note 1, sixth considering paragraph; Case of the 19 Tradesmen. Compliance with judgment, supra note 1, sixth considering paragraph; Case of Ricardo Canese. Compliance with judgment, supra note 1, sixth considering paragraph.