responsibility.2 The conventional obligations of the States Parties bind all powers and organs of the State.3 5. The States Parties to the Convention must ensure compliance with treaty provisions and their inherent effects (effet utile) within their respective domestic legal systems. This principle applies not only in connection with the substantive norms of human rights treaties (i.e. those dealing with provisions on protected rights), but also in connection with procedural rules, such as the ones concerning compliance with the decisions of the Court. These obligations should be interpreted and enforced in a manner that the protected guarantee is truly practical and effective, taking into account the special nature of human rights treaties.4 6. The States Parties to the Convention that have recognized the contentious jurisdiction of the Court must comply with the obligations established by the Court. This obligation includes the State’s duty to report to the Court the measures adopted to comply with that ordered by the Court in its rulings. Timely observance of the State’s obligation to report to the Court how it is complying with each of the operative paragraphs ordered is essential to assess the status of compliance of the Judgment as a whole.5 A) Investigate in an efficient and diligent manner, within a reasonable term, the facts of the case, and punish those responsible for the violations committed against the victims (operative paragraph twelve of the Judgment) 7. In its report of August 12, 2011, the State indicated that in order to coordinate the actions to investigate the case, it created “a Committee to promote advances with the participation of the representatives of the Public Prosecutor’s Office, the Fundación de Antropología Forense de Guatemala [(hereinafter “FAFG”)], the next of kin of Mr. Florencio Chitay Nech [(hereinafter “Mr. Chitay”)], and the [Comisión Presidencial Coordinadora de la Política del Ejecutivo en Materia de Derechos Humanos (hereinater “COPREDEH”)],in which periodic meetings have been programmed. 8. The representatives observed that the case “is in the [...] documentary research stage.” They added that “the committee established at COPREDEH has held three meetings to report on progress, however, it [has been] minimal.” Finally, they added that “[t]hey are 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 Montero Aranguren et al. (Detention Center of Catia) v. Venezuela, supra note 1, Considering clause four, and Case of the Yean and Bosico Girls v. The Dominican Republic supra note 1, Considering clause five. 3 Cf. Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Perú. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Court of July 1, 2011, Considering clause four; Case of Montero Aranguren et al. (Detention Center of Catia) v. Venezuela, supra note 1, Considering clause four, and Case of the Yean and Bosico Girls v. The Dominican Republic, supra note 1, Considering clause five. 4 Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Perú. Jurisdiction. Judgment of September 24, 1999. Series C No. 54, para. 37; Case of Montero Aranguren et al. (Detention Center of Catia) v. Venezuela, supra note 1, Considering clause five, and Case of the Yean and Bosico Girls v. The Dominican Republic supra note 1, Considering clause six. 5 Cf. Case of Barrios Altos v. Perú. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Court of September 22, 2005, Considering clause seven; Case of Yamata v. Nicaragua. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Court of June 30, 2011, Considering clause six, and Case of “Las Dos Erres” Massacre v. Guatemala. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Court of July 6, 2011, Considering clause six. 3