10 2. Peru has been a State Party to the American Convention since July 28, 1978 and recognized the Court’s binding jurisdiction on January 21, 1981. 3. Article 68(1) of the American Convention stipulates that “The States Parties to the Convention undertake to comply with the judgment of the Court in any case to which they are parties.” States Parties must therefore ensure domestic enforcement of what the Court orders in its judgments.1 4. Because judgments of the Court are final and not subject to appeal, as provided in Article 67 of the American Convention, the State’s compliance with the Court’s judgments must be swift and thorough. 5. The obligation to comply with the decisions in the Court’s judgments corresponds to a basic principle of the law of the international responsibility of the State, supported by international case law, according to which a State must comply with its international treaty obligations in good faith (pacta sunt servanda) and, as this Court has already indicated and as established in Article 27 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty.2 The States Parties’ obligations under the Convention are binding upon all branches of government and State agencies. 6. The States Parties to the Convention must guarantee compliance with its provisions and its effects (effet utile) within their own domestic laws. This principle applies not only to the substantive provisions of human rights treaties (in other words, the clauses on the protected rights), but also to the procedural provisions, such as the one concerning compliance with the Court’s judgments. These obligations must be interpreted and applied in such a way that the protected guarantee is truly practical and effective, given the special nature of international human rights treaties.3 7. States Parties to the Convention that have accepted the Court’s binding jurisdiction have a duty to comply with the obligations decided by the Court. This includes the State’s duty to report on the measures adopted in compliance with what the Court ordered in those decisions. Prompt observance of that State obligation to 1 Cf. Case of Baena-Ricardo et al.. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 131. 2 Cf. Matters of: Liliana Ortega et al., Luisiana Ríos et al., Luis Uzcátegui, Marta Colomina and Liliana Velásquez. Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 4, 2004, seventh considering paragraph; Case of Baena-Ricardo et al.. Competence, supra note 1, para. 128; and Case of Barrios Altos. Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 28, 2003, sixth considering paragraph. 3 Cf. Matters of: Liliana Ortega et al., Luisiana Ríos et al., Luis Uzcátegui, Marta Colomina and Liliana Velásquez. Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 4, 2004, twelfth considering paragraph; Case of Baena-Ricardo et al.. Competence, supra note 1, para. 66; Constitutional Court Case. Competence. Judgment of September 24, 1999. Series C No. 55, para. 36; and Case of Ivcher-Bronstein. Competence. Judgment of September 24, 1999. Series C No. 54, para. 37. See also, inter alia, Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute”. Judgment of September 2, 2004. Series C No. 112, para. 205; Case of the Gómez-Paquiyauri Brothers. Judgment of July 8, 2004. Series C No. 110, paragraphs 150 and 151; and Case of Bulacio. Judgment of September 18, 2003. Serie C No. 100, para. 142. In this regard, see also Klass and others v. Germany, (Merits) Judgment of 6 September 1978, ECHR, Series A no. 28, para. 34; and Permanent Court of Arbitration, Dutch-Portuguese Boundaries on the Island of Timor, Arbitral Award of June 25, 1914.