4 4. That in virtue of the definite and un-appealable character of the judgments of the Court, according to that established in Article 67 of the American Convention, the decisions of the Court must be fulfilled by the State within the time frame established for such purpose and in a complete manner. 5. That the obligation to comply with the Court’s judgments conforms to a basic principle of the law on the international responsibility of States, as supported by international case law, under which States are required to comply with their international treaty obligations in good faith (pacta sunt servanda) and, as previously held by the Court and provided for in Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969, States cannot invoke their municipal laws to escape their pre-established international responsibility.3 The State Parties’ obligations under the Convention bind all State branches and organs.4 6. That the State Parties to the Convention must guarantee compliance with the provisions thereof and their effects (effet utile) at the domestic-law level. This principle applies not only in connection with the substantive provisions of human rights treaties (i.e., those addressing the protected rights), but also in connection with their procedural provisions, such as those concerning compliance with the Court’s decisions. These obligations are to be interpreted and enforced in a manner such that the protected guarantee is truly practical and effective, considering the special nature of human rights treaties.5 7. That the State parties to the Convention that have accepted the Court’s adjudicatory jurisdiction have a duty to honor the obligations ordered by the Court. Peru, therefore, must take all measures necessary to effectively comply with that provided by the Court in the Judgments of February 6 and September 4, 2001. This obligation includes the State’s duty to report to the Court on the measures adopted to comply with what the Court ordered in that Judgment. This obligation of the State to tell the Court how it is complying with what the Court ordered is, therefore, essential in order to assess the status of compliance.6 * * * 3 Cf. International Responsibility for the Expedition and Application of Laws Violating the Convention (Articles 1 and 2 of the American Convention on Human Rights). Consultative Opinion OC-14/94 of December 9, 1994. Series A, No. 14, paragraph 35; Caracazo case, supra note 2, considering fifth, and Cantoral Haumani Garcia Santa Cruz case, supra note 2, considering fifth. 4 Cf. Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 17, 1999. Series C No. 59, considering third; Caracazo case, supra note 2, considering fifth, and Cantoral Huamani and Garcia Santa Cruz case, supra note 2, considering fifth. 5 Cf. Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Competence. Judgment of September 24, 1999. Series C No. 54, paragraph 37; Caracazo case, supra note 2, considering sixth, and Cantoral Huamani and Garcia Santa Cruz case, supra note 2, considering sixth. 6 Cf. “Five Pensioners” v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 17, 2004, considering fifth; Cantoral Huamani Garcia Santa Cruz, supra note 2, considering seventh, and Palamara Iribarne v. Chile, Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of September 21, 2009, considering seventh.