3 they are parties.” For such purpose, the States must guarantee that the Tribunal’s decisions are implemented domestically.1 4. That in view of the final and non-appealable nature of the judgments of the Court, as established in Article 67 of the American Convention, they should be complied with fully and promptly by the State within the established term. 5. That the obligation to comply with the rulings of the Court conforms to a basic principle of the law on the international responsibility of States, as supported by international case law, under which States are required to comply with their international treaty obligations in good faith (pacta sunt servanda) and, as previously held by the Court and provided for in Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969, States cannot invoke their municipal laws to escape their pre-established international responsibility. The obligations imposed by the Convention upon State Parties bound all powers and authorities of the State.2 6. That the States Parties to the American Convention must ensure compliance with its provisions and their inherent effects (effet utile) within their respective domestic legal systems. This principle applies not only to the substantive provisions of human rights treaties (in other words, the clauses on protected rights), but also to procedural provisions, such as the one concerning compliance with the Court’s judgments. These obligations shall be interpreted and applied so that the guarantee protected is truly practical and effective, bearing in mind the special nature of human rights treaties.3 7. That every State Party to the Convention having recognized the contentious jurisdiction of the Court has the duty to fulfill the obligations imposed by the Court. In this regard, Peru is required to take such measures as may be necessary in order to effectively comply with the Judgment of the Court. This duty includes the obligation of the State to report to the Court on the measures adopted to comply with the decisions of the Court in that Judgment. Timely fulfillment of the State’s obligation to report to the Court on the exact manner in which it is complying with each of the aspects ordered by the latter is essential to evaluate the status of compliance with the Judgment as a whole. 8. That without adequate information from the State, this Court cannot exercise its duty to monitor the execution of the judgments issued. In order to ensure and guarantee the application of the protection and reparation measures issued, the Court must be able to verify and have information regarding the execution of the Judgment, which is “the materialization of the protection of the right acknowledged in the judicial ruling through the correct application of said ruling.”4 1 Cf. Case of Baena-Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 131; and Case of Herrera-Ulloa v. Costa Rica. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the President of the Court of June 2, 2009, Considering clause No. 4, and Case of the Dismissed Congressional Employees (Aguado-Alfaro et al.) v. Peru. Monitoring compliance with Judgment. Order of the Court of June 08, 2009, Considering clause No. 3. 2 Cf. International Responsibility for the Promulgation and Enforcement of Laws in Violation of the Convention (Arts. 1 and 2 of the American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC -14/94 of December 9, 1994. Series A No. 14, para. 35, Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the President of the Court of May 20, 2009, Considering clause No. 4; and Case of the Dismissed Congressional Employees (Aguado-Alfaro et al.) v. Peru, supra note 1, Considering clause No. 4. 3 Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Competence. Judgment of September 24, 1999. Series C No. 54, para. 37; Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Community v. Paraguay, supra note 2, Considering clause No. 2, and Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador. Monitoring compliance with Judgment. Order of the Court of April 29, 2009, Considering clause No. 6. 4 Cf. Case of Baena-Ricardo et al. v. Panama, supra note 1, para. 73.