4 4. 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 is applicable not only with regard to the substantive norms of human rights treaties (that is, those which contain provisions concerning the protected rights), but also with regard to procedural norms, such as those referring to compliance with the decisions of the Court. These obligations shall be interpreted and applied so that the protected guarantee is truly practical and effective, bearing in mind the special nature of human rights treaties.2 * * * 5. That, regarding the second operative paragraph of the judgment (supra first having seen paragraph), the State reported that it had complied with payment of the sum of US$125,000.00 (one hundred and twenty-five thousand United States dollars) to Virginia Bonifacia Ugarte Rivera de Durand and Norberto Durand Vargas. 6. That, regarding the pecuniary reparations, the representatives observed that, on December 22, 2001, the State had made a partial payment of S/.289,587.00 (two hundred and eighty-nine thousand five hundred and eighty-seven new soles) to Virginia Bonifacia Ugarte Rivera de Durand and Norberto Durand Vargas. Then, on January 11, 2002, it made a second partial payment of S/.10,306.48 (ten thousand three hundred and six new soles and forty-eight cents). The amounts paid in soles equaled US$86,000.00 United States dollars. Subsequently, on May 28, 2003, a final payment was made, which was the equivalent of US$39,000.00 (thirty-nine thousand United States dollars) and, with this, the State has complied fully with this obligation. 7. That the Commission indicated that it acknowledged the payment of the compensation ordered by the Court, which the State had made in three installments. 8. Based on the information submitted by the parties, the Court considers that the State has complied with the second operative paragraph of the judgment. * * * 9. That, regarding the third operative paragraph of the judgment, in which the State was ordered to provide health care services, psychological support and interpersonal development, and assistance for the construction of a residence, in its briefs of June 14, August 18 and September 4, 2006, and July 9 and December 18, 2007 (supra fourth having seen paragraph), the State reported on various steps taken to comply with these measures. In this regard, it indicated the following: (a) regarding the obligation to provide health care services, and in order to implement and comply with the undertaking made, the Ministry of Health had authorized the incorporation of Virginia Bonifacia Ugarte Rivera and Nolberto Durand Vargas into Plan “E” of the 2 Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein. Competence. Judgment of September 24, 1999. Series C No. 54, para. 37; Fermín Ramírez v. Guatemala. Monitoring compliance; Raxcacó Reyes v. Guatemala. Monitoring compliance. Case of Raxcacó Reyes et al. Provisional measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 9, 2008, forty-third considering paragraph; and Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community. Monitoring compliance with judgment, supra nota 1, sixth considering paragraph.