4 all powers and organs of the State.3 6. The States Parties to the Convention must guarantee compliance with the conventional provisions and their effects (effet utile) within their respective domestic legal systems. This principle applies not only in relation to the substantive provisions of human rights treaties (meaning those that contain provisions on protected human rights), but also in relation to procedural rules such as those concerning compliance with the Court’s decisions. These obligations must be interpreted and applied so that the protected guarantee is truly practical and effective, taking into consideration the special nature of human rights treaties.4 * * * 7. Regarding the State’s duty to immediately inform the relevant private institutions that they must eliminate from their records all reference to Mr. Chaparro and Mr. Lapo as authors or suspects of the criminal act of which they were accused in this case (operative paragraph nine of the Judgment), the State reported that “in addition to informing the Association of Private Banks and the Banks Superintendence, […] the victim’s representatives […] sent an e-mail requesting the State to submit communications to the following institutions: Banco de Guayaquil, Banco del Pichincha, Banco del Pacífico, Basf Ecuatoriana S.A., communications that were sent [by the State] on April 15, 2009.” It highlighted that “[i]n the text of the communications it expressed that [the victims] were dismiss[ed] of all charges, and that the State of Ecuador was punished for infringing their rights during the process, as established by the Court’s [J]udgment.” Likewise, it reported that in conformity with the representatives’ requests, they also sent similar communications to the embassies of Chile and the United States in Guayaquil on April 24, 2009. It therefore indicated that it considered that the instant reparation measure “has been fully complie[d] with.” 8. The representatives indicated, in reference to the records of private institutions, that “new communications had to be coordinated, as Mr. Chaparro Álvarez had an inconvenience at a banking institution, as he was informed over the phone that they could not make any transaction on his behalf since he was registered in a database of individuals related to drug trafficking activities.” On the other hand, Mr. Lapo Íñiguez did not refer to compliance with this reparation. 9. The Commission took cognizance of the information presented by the State and the supporting documentation. However, it observed that “from the content of the communications it does not derive that the State has adopted the necessary measures to comply with the duty of eliminating the victims’ names from the records of the aforementioned institutions,” therefore it indicated that “it awaits the representatives’ information regarding the effectiveness of the steps taken by the State and their satisfaction with those steps, to issue an opinion in that regard.” 10. The Court values the communications made by the State, and observes that these communications were effectively sent to the private institutions indicated by Mr. Chaparro’s 3 Cf. Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Court of November 17, 1999. Series C No. 59, considering three; Case of the Saramaka People v. Suriname, supra note 1, considering five, and Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panama, supra note 1, considering four. 4 Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Competence. Judgment of September 24, 1999. Series C No. 54, para. 37; Case of the Saramaka People v. Suriname, supra note 1, considering six, and Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panama, supra note 1, considering five.