4 3. That Article 68(1) of the American Convention provides 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.” To that end, the States must ensure compliance with the Court’s decisions at the domestic level.1 4. That by virtue of the final and non-appealable nature of the Judgments of the Court, as established in Article 67 of the American Convention, they must be promptly complied with by the State in their entirety. 5. That the obligation to comply with the judgments of the Court conforms to a basic principle of law of the international responsibility of States, as supported by the international case law, under which States are required to comply with their international treaty obligations in good faith (pacta sunt servanda) and, as already stated by this Court as prescribed in Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969, domestic law many no be invoked to justify non-fulfillment of previously undertaken international obligations.2 Treaty obligations of the States parties are binding on all State Powers and organs.3 6. That the States Parties to the Convention are required to guarantee compliance with the provisions thereof and their effects (effet utile) at the domestic level. This principle is applicable not only with regard to the substantive provisions of human rights treaties (i.e. those dealing with protected rights) but also with regard to procedural rules, such as those concerning compliance with the decisions of the Court. These obligations are to be interpreted and enforced in a manner such that the protected guarantee is truly practical and effective, bearing in mind the special nature of human rights treaties.4 7. That States Parties to the Convention that have recognized the binding jurisdiction of the Court have the duty to comply with the obligations established by the Tribunal. This obligation includes the duty, on behalf of the State, to inform the Court of measures adopted in order to comply with what the Tribunal has ordered in its decisions. The timely observance of the State’s obligation to indicate to the Tribunal how it is complying with 1 Cf. Case of Baena-Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003, Series C No. 104, para. 131; Case of Cantoral-Huaminí and García-Santa Cruz v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of April 28, 2009, considering clause No. 3; and Case of Chaparro-Álvarez and Lapo-Iñiguez v. Ecuador. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of April 29, 2009, Considering clause No. 3. 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, para. 35; Case of Cantoral-Huaminí and García-Santa Cruz v. Peru, supra note 1, Considering clause No. 5, and Case of Chaparro-Álvarez and Lapo-Íñiguez v. Ecuador, supra note 1, Considering clause No. 5. 3 Cf. Case of Castillo-Petruzzi et al. v. Peru. Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 17, 1999. Series C. No. 59, Considering clause No. 3; Case of Cantoral-Huaminí and García-Santa Cruz v. Peru, supra note 1, Considering clause No. 5, and Case of Chaparro-Álvarez and Lapo-Iníguez v. Ecuador, supra note 1, Considering clause No. 5. 4 Cf. Case of Ivcher-Bronstein v. Peru. Competence. Judgment of September 24, 1999, Series C. No. 54, para. 37; Case of Cantoral-Huaminí and García-Santa Cruz v. Peru, supra note 1, Considering clause No. 6, and Case of Chaparro-Álvarez and Lapo-Íñiguez v. Ecuador, supra note 1, Considering clause No. 6.