3 case to which they are parties.”1 For such purpose, the States are required to guarantee the implementation of the Court’s decisions at the domestic level. 8. That the obligation to comply with the judgments of the Court conforms to a basic principle of the law of the international responsibility of the 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 domestic laws to escape their preestablished international responsibility. The treaty obligations of States Parties are binding on all State powers and organs.2 9. That the States Parties to the American Convention are required to guarantee compliance with the provisions thereof and secure 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 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 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.3 * * * 10. That with regard to operative paragraph 7 (supra Having Seen 2), the State has failed to submit information on the steps taken regarding the investigation into those responsible for the facts described in the instant case. 11. That the representatives pointed out that they had no information about whether the State had taken any steps regarding the investigation into the facts and requested the Court “[…] to call upon the State of Honduras to submit a detailed and updated report on the progress of the investigation […]” (supra Having Seen 3). 12. That the Commission expressed its concern about the failure of the State to submit information in general about the progress in the steps taken to comply with the measures ordered by the Court, among them, the obligation to conduct an investigation into the facts (supra Having Seen 4). 1 Cf. Case of Baena-Ricardo et al v. Panama. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 131; Case of Palamara-Iribarne v. Chile. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 30, 2007, Considering 3; and Case of the Girls Yean and Bosico v. Dominican Republic. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 28, 2007, Considering 4. 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 the Plan de Sánchez Massacre v. Guatemala. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 28, 2007, Considering 3; and Case of Palamara-Iribarne v. Chile, supra note 1, Considering 5. 3 Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Competence. Judgment of September 24, 1999. Series C No. 54, para. 37; Case of the Plan de Sánchez Massacre v. Guatemala, supra note 2, Considering 4; and Case of Palamara-Iribarne v. Chile, supra note 1, Considering 6.