3 servanda) and, as set forth by this Court and in Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969, States cannot, for domestic reasons, ignore their international responsibility.2 The treaty obligations of State Parties are binding on all branches and bodies of the State.3 5. The States Parties to the Convention must guarantee compliance with the provisions thereof and their effectiveness (effet utile) within their 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.4 I. In relation to the obligation to investigate, identify, try and, where appropriate, punish those responsible for the extrajudicial execution of Mr. Almonacid Arellano and the duty to ensure that Decree Law No. 2.191 does not continue to hinder the continuation of investigations (operative paragraph five and paragraphs 145 to 157 of the Judgment) 6. The State provided information on actions that "have nullified resolutions and judgments that dismissed the cause through the enforcement [of] the Decree Law 2.191 (Amnesty DL)," the remanding of the case to the ordinary courts and the progress of the criminal proceedings. Chile reported that: a) In October 2007, it ordered the reopening of the judicial investigation into the death of Mr. Almonacid, and the Rancagua Appeals Court appointed a special visiting judge as the judge to hear the case on the murder of Mr. Almonacid. Subsequently, a peremptory challenge was lodged between said judge and the Second Military Court of Santiago. On December 3, 2008, the Supreme Court of Chile ruled that "regarding case No. 876-96 (40.184) of the First Criminal Court of Rancagua, on the homicide of Luis Almonacid Arellano, a peremptory challenge [could] not be lodged with military justice "based on a report issued by the Prosecutor of the Supreme Court, whereby it stated that the ruling of the Inter-American Court "deemed it necessary to reopen proceedings before the ordinary judiciary and manifested the inapplicability of the amnesty for the accused." Therefore, consequently, the Supreme Court ruled that the case should be heard by the special visiting judge appointed by the Court of Appeals of Rancagua. On December 24, 2008, the judge issued a resolution in which he decided that, in compliance with the Judgment of the Inter-American Court, it [was] necessary "to pursue —in a civil court— the preliminary criminal investigation No. 40.184 of the First Criminal Court of Rancagua on the murder of Luis Almonacid Arellano." The Home Under-Secretary and the Human Rights Program of the Ministry of the Interior "have participated in said criminal case," which "will make it 2 Cf. International responsibility the issuance and enforcement of laws that violate the Convention (Art. 1 and 2 of the American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion AO-14/94 of December 9, 1994. Series A No. 14, para. 35; Case of De la Cruz Flores v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment Order of the Court of September 1, 2010, Considering Clause five, and Case of Tristán Donoso v. Panama, supra note 1, Considering Clause five. 3 Cf. Case Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru. Compliance with Judgment. Order of November 17, 1999. Series C No. 59, Considering Clause three; Case of De la Cruz Flores v. Peru, supra note 2, Considering Clause three, and Case of Tristán Donoso v. Panama, supra note 1, Considering Clause five. 4 Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Competence. Judgment of September 24, 1999. Series C No. 54, para. 33; Case of De la Cruz Flores v. Peru, supra note 2, Considering Clause six, and Case of Tristán Donoso v. Panama, supra note 1, Considering Clause six.