5 of human rights treaties (i.e. those dealing with the 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.3 5. That those States Parties to the American Convention that have accepted the binding jurisdiction of the Court are under a duty to fulfill the obligations set by the Tribunal. This obligation includes the State’s duty to report on the measures adopted to comply with such decisions of the Court. Timely fulfillment of the State’s obligation to report to the Court on the exact manner in which it is complying with each of the aspects ordered by the latter is essential to evaluate the status of compliance in this case.4 Furthermore, the General Assembly of the OAS repeated that, in order for the Court to fully meet its obligation to report to the General Assembly on compliance with its judgments, the States Parties need to provide, in time fashion, the information requested by the Court.5 6. That, the Secretary of the Court sent notes to the States on several occasions (supra, Considering Clause 5), reminding it of the obligation to report on the measures adopted to comply with the Judgment. 7. That, pursuant to section 67 of the American Convention, State parties must fully comply with the judgments entered by the Court in time fashion. Furthermore, section 68(1) of the American Convention stipulates that ““[t]he States Parties to the Convention undertake to comply with the judgment of the Court in any case to which they are parties”. The treaty obligations of States Parties are binding on all the States’ powers and organs.6 8. That, the Peruvian State has not reported on the compliance with the Judgment and, therefore, had failed to fulfill its conventional obligation. 3 Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Competence. Judgment of September 24, 1999. Series C No. 54, para. 37; Case of Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community, supra note 2, Considering clause six and Case of Raxcacó Reyes. supra note 2, Considering clause forty-three. 4 Cf. Case of Barrios Altos v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of September 22, 2005; Considering Clause seven; Case of Claude Reyes et al v. Chile. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 2, 2008; Considering Clause seven and Case of Gómez- Paquiyauri Brothers v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 3, 2008, Considering Clause seven. 5 General Assembly, Resolution AG/RES 2292 (XXXVII-O/07) adopted at the fourth plenary session, held on June 5, 2007, entitled “Observations and Recommendations on the Annual Report of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights”. 6 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al v. Panamá. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 60; Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Monitoring Compliance with the Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 8, 2008; Considering Clause fifty-four and Case of the Indigenous Community of Yakye Axa v. Paraguay. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 8, 2008, third Considering forty-nine.