10 1978 and that it accepted the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on January 21, 1981. 3. That, pursuant to Article 68(1) of the American Convention, “[t]he States Parties to the Convention undertake to comply with the judgment of the Court in any case to which they are parties.” For such purpose, States are required to guarantee implementation of the Court’s rulings at the domestic level.1 4. That, given that the Court’s judgments are final and not subject to appeal, as set out in Article 67 of the American Convention, said judgments are to be promptly and fully complied with by the State. 5. That the obligation to comply with the judgments of the Court conforms to a basic principle of the Law of International Responsibility of States, upheld by international case law, under which States are required to comply with their international treaty obligations in good faith (pacta sunt servanda). 6. That the States Parties to the Convention are required to guarantee compliance with the provisions thereof and their effects (effet utile) at the domestic level. This principle is applicable not only with regard to the substantive provisions of human rights treaties (i.e. those dealing with the protected rights) but also with regard to procedural rules, such as those concerning compliance with the decisions of the Court. These obligations are to be interpreted and enforced in a manner such that the protected guarantee is truly practical and effective, bearing in mind the special nature of human rights treaties.2 7. That the States Parties to the American Convention which have accepted the contentious jurisdiction of the Court are under a duty to fulfill the obligations imposed by this Court. This obligation includes the State’s duty to report on the measures adopted to comply with the orders of the Court. Timely fulfillment of the State’s obligation to report to the Court on the manner in which it is complying with each of the aspects ordered by the latter is essential to evaluate the level of compliance with the Judgment as a whole.3 Moreover, the General Assembly of the Organization of American States has reiterated that, in order to enable the Court to fully meet its obligation to report to the General Assembly on compliance with its judgments, it is 1 Cf. Case of Baena-Ricardo et al. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 131; Case of Molina-Theissen. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 10, 2007, Considering clause No. 2; and Case of García-Asto and RamírezRojas. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 12, 2007, Considering clause No. 4. 2 Cf. Case of Ivcher-Bronstein. Competence. Judgment of September 24, 1999, para. 37; Case of Gómez-Palomino. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of October 18, 2007, Considering clause No. 4; and Case of Molina-Theissen. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment, supra note 1, Considering clause No. 4. 3 Cf. Case of Barrios Altos. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 22, 2005, Considering clause No. 7; Case of Gómez-Palomino. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment, supra note 2, Considering clause No. 5; and Case of García-Asto and RamírezRojas. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment, supra note 1, Considering clause No. 8.