2. Brazil has been a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the American Convention” or “the Convention”) since September 25, 1992, and, in accordance with Article 62 of the Convention, accepted the binding jurisdiction of the Court on December 10, 1998. 3. Article 68(1) of the American Convention stipulates that “[t]he States Parties to the Convention undertake to comply with the judgment of the Court in any case to which they are parties.” To that end, the States must ensure implementation of the decisions of the Court in its judgments at the domestic level.1 4. Owing to the final and non-appealable nature of the judgments of the Court established in Article 67 of the American Convention, the State must comply with them promptly and fully. 5. The obligation to comply with the decisions in the Court’s judgments corresponds to a basic principle of the law on 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, the States may not invoke the provisions of domestic law as justification for their failure to assume the pre-established international responsibility.2 The treaty obligations of the States Parties are binding for all the powers and organs of the State.3 6. The States Parties to the American 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.4 7. The States Parties to the Convention that have accepted the binding jurisdiction of the Court have the duty to comply with the obligations established by the Court. These obligations include the duty of the State to inform the Court of the measures adopted to comply with the orders of the Court in its decisions. Prompt observance of the State obligation to inform the Court of the way in which it is complying with each aspect ordered 1 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003, Series C No. 104, para. 131, and Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of December 1, 2011, third considering paragraph. 2 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, and Case of Chitay Nech et al. v. Guatemala. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of December 1, 2011, fourth considering paragraph. 3 Cf. Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 17, 1999, third considering paragraph, and Case of Chitay Nech et al. v. Guatemala, supra note 2, fourth considering paragraph. 4 Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Competence. Judgment of September 24, 1999, Series C No. 54, para. 37, and Case of Chitay Nech et al. v. Guatemala, supra note 2, fifth considering paragraph. 2