4 6. That the States Parties to the American Convention must guarantee the fulfillment of all the conventional provisions and their own effects (effet utile) in the scope of their respective domestic systems. This principle applies not only regarding substantive rules of human rights treaties (that is to say, those containing provisions on the protected rights), but also with regard to procedural rules, such as those, which refer to the compliance with the Court Orders. These obligations must be interpreted and applied in such a way that the protected guarantee is truly practical and efficient, taking the very special nature of human rights treaties into account.4 7. That the States Parties to the Convention, which have acknowledged the adversarial jurisdiction of the Court have the duty to comply with the obligations set forth by said Tribunal. This obligation includes the duty of the State to inform the Court on the measures adopted for the fulfillment of what has been ordered by the Court through its Orders. The timely observance of the State obligation to inform the Court on how it is complying with each of the Court’s orders is critical to assess the status of compliance with the Judgment as a whole.5 * * * 8. That regarding the duty to investigate, identify, prosecute and -should it be the case- punish those responsible for the facts (operative paragraph nine of the Judgment), the State pointed out that it was expecting updated information on the part of the Judicial Power, and that as soon as it had it, it would forward it as supplementary information. 9. That the representatives noticed that the State failed to forward information regarding this reparation measure. However, they informed that on December 18, 2007, the Segunda Fiscalía Penal Supraprovincial (Second Criminal Supraprovincial Public Prosecutor´s Office) denounced Jesús Miguel Ríos-Saenz and Jorge Mauro Huamán-Alacute as the alleged perpetrators, and Máximo Agustín Mantilla-Campos as the alleged instigator of the crimes of kidnapping and murder of Saúl Isaac Cantoral-Huamaní and Consuelo Trinidad García-Santa Cruz. Later, on May 28, 2008, the Cuarto Juzgado Penal Supraprovincial (Fourth Supraprovincial Criminal Court) decided to institute criminal proceedings against said persons for the crimes of kidnapping and aggravated murder, issuing an arrest warrant against them. As the term for the judicial investigation had expired, the case file was forwarded to the Sala Penal Nacional (National Criminal Chamber) and to the Ministerio Público (Public 4 Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Competence. Judgment of September 24, 1999. Series C No. 54, par. 37; Case of Herrera-Ulloa, supra note 1, Considering Clause No. six; Case of the Pueblo Bello Massare, supra note 1, Considering Clause No. six. 5 Cf. Case of Barrios Altos v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of September 22, 2005, Considering clause No. seven; Case of HerreraUlloa, supra note 1, Considering clause No. seven, and Case of Cantoral-Huamaní and García-Santa Cruz v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of April 28, 2009, Considering clause No. seven.