3 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, under which States are required to fulfill 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 from their pre-established international responsibility.3 6. That the States Parties to the Convention must ensure compliance with its provisions and their inherent effects (effet utile) within their respective domestic legal systems. This principle applies not only in connection with the substantive provisions of human rights treaties (i.e. those dealing with provisions on protected rights) but also in connection with procedural rules, such as the ones concerning compliance with the decisions of the Court. Such obligations are intended to be interpreted and enforced in a manner such that the protected guarantee is truly practical and effective, taking into account the special nature of human rights treaties.4 7. That the Court values the advantage of the hearing held to monitor the aspects of the case which are still pending compliance (supra Having Seen clause 6), which is represented by the good will and cooperation shown by the parties that have coincided with the non-compliance of some aspects of the referred Judgments. 8. That, according to the Operative Paragraph Six of the Judgment on the merits (supra, Having Seen clause 1) and Two of the Judgment on the reparations (supra Having Seen clause 2), the State must investigate the facts that resulted in the violations of the American Convention, identify and, if applicable, punish the responsible. 9. That, during the private hearing, the State acknowledged "the weakness" of justice in the case at hand. Furthermore, it informed that in relation to the criminal action Nº 165-67, 27 investigated people were finally dismissed and that at the moment, the case is under review by the Human Rights' Prosecution Office "in order to determine the lines of investigation necessary for the reopening of the case and the enlightening of the facts”. For the State, the dismissal does not mean that the investigations are finally closed Moreover, the State pointed out that it acknowledged that "the moral reparation is not complete as long as justice is made” and that it is not requesting to finish monitoring compliance with the Judgment on this aspect, but the opposite, to keep the procedure open. 10. That in the hearing held in private the Commission considered that the State has not complied with the Judgment as to the investigation, aspect that was regarded as "a fundamental part" of the case. The Commission acknowledged the complexity of the issue and stated that it hopes that the State adopts specific measures to comply with the Judgments. 3 Cf. International Responsibility for the Promulgation and Enforcement of Laws in Violation of the Convention (articles 1 and 2 American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-14/94 of September 9, 1994, Series A Nº.14, para. 35; Case of García Asto and Ramírez Rojas, supra note 1, Considering clause six and Case of Molina Theissen, supra note 2, Considering clause three. 4 Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein. Competence. Judgment of September 24, 1999. Series C No. 54, para. 37; Case of Gómez Palomino. Monitoring compliance with Judgment. Order of October 18, 2007 Considering Clause four and Case of García Asto and Ramírez Rojas, supra note 2, Considering Clause seven.