4 rights. This principle applies not only to the substantive rules in human rights treaties (that is, those containing provisions on protected rights), but also with regard to procedural rules, such as those regarding compliance with decisions of the Court. Taking into account the distinct nature of human rights treaties, these obligations shall be interpreted and applied in such a way that the protection guaranteed is truly practical and effective.6 A.1) Simple, rapid, and effective mechanism for determining rights 7. Regarding the obligation established in operative paragraph 4 of the judgment (supra Having Seen five), the State has expressed that “it is complying with taking the pertinent steps” for complying with the judgment; that it has met with the interveners to implement a Commission allowing for a response to what is required in the judgment and has informed the Legislative Branch that the Commission must be made up of two State representatives (from the Ministry of justice and Congress) and a representative of the workers. With regard to the point on the free legal aid to the benefit of the victims, the State reported that the General Directorate of Public Defenders designated the public defenders for the legal support of the 257 victims, indicating that 10 public defenders were named that would work free of charge, in compliance with the provisions of paragraph 149 of the judgment. The State also reported that the new special Commission7 has been operating since July 16, 2010, and its purpose is to "guarantee access to a simple, rapid, and effective remedy to the 257 victims in the case." According to the State, that Commission is "constituted based on the rules set forth in the Order of Monitoring [of Compliance]” of November 20, 2009, issued in this case. The State also indicated that once the special Commission was set up on August 23, 2010, the Ministry of Justice was asked to ratify and recognize it. It noted that the Commission would be made up of delegates from the Congress of the Republic and the Ministry of Justice, as well as delegates of the victims and a president. According to the information provided by the State, the Special Commission had 90 calendar days to issue a final report, a deadline that expired on November 23, 2010,8 although the State has not informed the Tribunal of the result. Following the installation of the Special Commission, the National Registry of Identification and Civil Status was asked to provide the current addresses of the 257 victims in order to notify all the victims of these actions and guarantee due process. The State indicated that on October 5 and 29, 2010, public hearings were held where the floor was opened for individuals to voluntarily come forward and make statements. According to the information provided, 69 victims named in the judgment requested the floor to present their claims before the "Special Commission."9 The State indicated that the hearings are being recorded in order to later be forwarded to this Tribunal. Additionally, the State added that the Special Commission has found it necessary to set a new date for holding another public hearing and that the "date is open" in order to "be able to hear all the victims who were not able to take the floor and who wish to express […] alternatives for resolving their specific cases." 8. The common interveners expressed that in March of 2010, they rejected the proposal of the Specialized Supranational Office of the State’s Attorney of the Ministry of Justice to set up a "Special Commission" composed of three members, as it did not comply with what the Court set forth in its Order dated November 20, 2009. Later, they reported that on March 31, 2010, they received new communication from the Office of the State's Attorney 6 Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Jurisdiction. Judgment of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 24, 1999, para. 37; Case of Tristán Donoso v. Panama. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. supra footnote 5, Considering 5, and Case of De la Cruz Flores v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment, supra footnote 5, Considering 6. 7 This Special Commission is headed by Mr. Carlos Blancas Bustamente, chosen on July 26, 2010, during a meeting of the Special Commission that took place in the offices of the Supranational Office of the State’s Attorney. See: Annex 13 of the brief of the State dated November 9, 2010 (case file of monitoring of compliance, pages XX). 8 Cf. Annex 14 of the brief of the State dated November 9, 2010 (case file of monitoring of compliance, pages XX). 9 Cf. Annex 17 and 18 of the brief of the State dated November 9, 2010, containing lists of the individuals who requested the floor during the public hearings called by the "Special Commission" (case file of monitoring of compliance, pages XX).