3 3. That the obligation to comply with the rulings of the Tribunal concerns the basic principle of the law over the international responsibility of the State, supported by the international jurisprudence, through which the States are required to comply with their conventional international obligations in good faith (pacta sunt servanda).1 4. That the State Parties in the Convention must guarantee the compliance of the conventional dispositions and their inherent effects (effet utile) regarding their corresponding domestic law. This principle applies not only according with the substantive forms of the human rights treaties (that is to say, the ones containing the dispositions on the protected rights), but also regarding the Rules of Procedure, like those referring to the compliance of the decisions of the Court. These obligations must be interpreted and applied in such way that the protected warrantee would be practical and effective, considering the special nature of the human rights treaties.2 5. That the State Parties that have acknowledged the mandatory jurisdiction of the Court ought to comply with the obligations stated by the Tribunal. This obligation includes that the State must inform the Court about the measures adopted to comply with that ordered by the Court in the Judgment. The opportune observance of indicating the Tribunal how the State is complying with each of the aspects ordered by the Court is essential for the evaluation of the compliance with the case.3 Likewise, the General Assembly of the Organization of American States (OAS) has reiterated that in order for the Tribunal to comply with the obligation of reporting them about the compliance of its judgment, it is necessary for the State Parties to report opportunely with the information required by the Court.4 6. That the State was reminded, repeatedly (supra Having Seen 4), about its obligation of reporting on the measures adopted for the compliance with Judgment through notes sent by the Secretariat, following the instructions of the Presidency. 1 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, par. 35; Case Baena Ricardo et al. V. Panama. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Court of May 28, 2010, Considering fifth, and Case Vargas Areco V. Paraguay. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the President of the Court of July 20, 2010, Considering fourth. 2 Cf. Case Ivcher Bronstein V. Peru. Competence. Judgment of September 24, 1999, Series C No. 54, Par. 37; Case Vargas Areco V. Paraguay, supra note 1, Considering fifth; and Case Baena Ricardo et al. V. Panama, supra note 1, Considering sixth. 3 Cfr. Caso Barrios Altos Vs. Perú. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Court of September 22, 2005, Considering seventh; Case Baena Ricardo et al. V. Panamá, supra note 1, Considering seventh, and Case Ximenes Lopes V. Brasil. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Court of May 17, 2010, Considering seventh. 4 AG/RES. 2292 (XXXVII-O/07) Order of the General Assembly of the OAS passed on the fourth plenary session, celebrated on June 5, 2007, titled “Observations and Recommendations to the Annual Report of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights,” operative paragraph fourth; AG/RES. 2408 (XXXVIII-O/08) Order of the General Assembly of the OAS passed on the fourth plenary session, celebrated on June 3, 2008, titled “Observations and Recommendations to the Annual Report of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights,” operative paragraph fourth; and AG/RES.2500 (XXXIX-O/09) Order of the General Assembly of the OAS passed on the fourth plenary session, celebrated on June 4, 2009, titled “Observations and Recommendations to the Annual Report of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights,” operative paragraph fourth.