3 4. The obligation to comply with the Tribunal's rulings conforms to a basic principle of international law, supported by international jurisprudence, under which States must abide by their international treaty obligations in good faith (pacta sunt 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, neglect their pre-established 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 ensure compliance with its conventional provisions and their effectiveness (effet utile) within their respective 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 6. The States Parties to the Convention that have recognized the contentious jurisdiction of the Court have a duty to comply with the obligations provided for by the Court. This includes the duty of the State to inform the Court about the measures taken to comply with the Court's Orders. Timely fulfillment of the State's obligation to advise the Court how it is complying with each of the points it ordered is essential in order to assess the state of compliance with the Judgment as a whole.5 A. Adoption of all measures necessary to effectively and promptly comply with the points of the Judgment that are outstanding and inform the Court thereon. 7. During the private hearing held on May 26, 2010 regarding the present case, the State expressed its commitment to providing the Court, within three months, with a detailed and comprehensive timeline of action taken to fully comply with the Judgment. As something it deemed to be useful and favorable for this process, in its Order of May 28, 2010 (supra Having Seen 2), the Court took up the State’s proposal and ordered that the timeline be presented by September 6, 2010. However, the Court indicated that it would Considering Clause 3, and Case of Caso Castillo Páez v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Court of May 19, 2011, Considering Clause 3. 2 Cf. International responsibility for the issuance and application 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 Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico, supra note 1, Considering Clause 5, and Case of Caso Castillo Páez v. Peru, supra note 1, Considering Clause 4. 3 Cf. Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of November 17, 1999, Considering Clause 3; Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico, supra note 1, Considering Clause 5, and Case of Caso Castillo Páez v. Peru, supra note 1, Considering Clause 4. 4 Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Competence. Judgement of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 24, 1999. Series C No. 54, para. 37; Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico, supra note 1, Considering Clause 6, and Case of Caso Castillo Páez v. Peru, supra note 1, Considering Clause 5. 5 Cf. Case of Barrios Altos v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of Setmeber 22, 2005, Considering Clause 7; Case of Garibaldi v. Brazil. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 22, 2011, Considering Clause 7, and Case of Caso Castillo Páez v. Peru, supra note 1, Considering Clause 6.