accepted the binding jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court on July 27, 1993. 3. In accordance with the provisions of Article 67 of the American Convention, the State must comply fully with the Court's judgments. Furthermore, Article 68(1) of the American Convention stipulates that “the State Parties to the Convention undertake to comply with the Court's decisions in any case to which they are parties.” To this end, the States must ensure implementation of the provisions of the Court's judgments in the domestic sphere.1 4. The obligation to comply with the Court's decisions corresponds to a basic principle of international law, supported by international jurisprudence, according to which States must abide by their international treaty obligations in good faith (pacta sunt servanda) and, as this Court has indicated and as established in Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969, a party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty. 2 The treaty obligations of State Parties are binding on all the powers and organs of the State.3 5. The States Parties to the Convention must ensure compliance with the treatybased provisions and their effectiveness (effet utile) within their respective domestic law. 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 which must ensure 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. 4. A) Regarding the obligation to continue processing the criminal proceedings concerning the forced disappearance of Renato Ticona Estrada in order to conclude them as soon as possible (tenth operative paragraph of the judgment) 6. The State reported that the Public Prosecutor’s Office has taken measures to conclude the judicial proceedings, and then to locate those who were sentenced and 1 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 60; Case of Valle Jaramillo v. Colombia. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of December 21, 2010, considering paragraph 3, and Case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of December 22, 2010, considering paragraphs 3 and 4. 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 Valle Jaramillo v. Colombia, supra note 1, considering paragraph 4, and Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of December 21, 2010, considering paragraph 6. 3 Cf. Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of November 17, 1999, considering paragraph 3; Case of Valle Jaramillo v. Colombia, supra note 1, considering paragraph 4, and Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru, supra note 2, considering paragraph 6. 4 Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Competence. Judgment of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 24, 1999. Series C No. 54, para. 37; Case of Valle Jaramillo v. Colombia, supra note 1, considering paragraph 5, and Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru, supra note 2, considering paragraph 7. 3