8 inadmissible.3 The Court has stated that the general obligations embodied in Article 1(1) and 2 of the American Convention require the States Parties to adopt promptly any type of judicial decisions to ensure that no one may be withheld the right to judicial protection4 embodied in Article 25 of the American Convention. 12. That, pursuant to the treaty obligations assumed by the States, no provision of domestic law, including the statute of limitations, may be invoked to fail to comply with the decisions of the Court concerning the investigation and punishment of those responsible for human rights violations. Otherwise, the rights embodied in the American Convention would be deprived of effective protection. This understanding of the Court is in accordance with the letter and the spirit of the Convention and also general principles of law; one of these principles is that of pacta sunt servanda, which requires that the provisions of a treaty should be ensured effet util at the level of the domestic law of the States Parties.5 13. That, in the terms of Article 65 of the American Convention, [t]o each regular session of the General Assembly of the Organization of American States the Court shall submit, for the Assembly's consideration, a report on its work during the previous year. It shall specify, in particular, the cases in which a state has not complied with its judgments, making any pertinent recommendations. 14. That Article 30 of the Statute of the Court establishes that: [t]he Court shall submit a report on its work of the previous year to each regular session of the OAS General Assembly. It shall indicate those cases in which a State has failed to comply with the Court's ruling. It may also submit to the OAS General Assembly proposals or recommendations on ways to improve the inter-American system of human rights, insofar as they concern the work of the Court. 15. That, since the Court has not complied with the obligation to investigate, prosecute and punish those responsible for the human rights violations declared by this Court to the detriment of Consuelo Benavides Cevallos and her next of kin, the Court, in application of Article 65 of the American Convention and Article 30 of its Statute, may include this Order in its 2003 Annual Report, so that it will be submitted to the consideration of the General Assembly of the Organization of American States. THEREFORE: THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS, in exercise of its authority to monitor compliance with its decisions and in accordance with Articles 65, 67 and 68(1) of the American Convention sobre Derechos Humanos, Article 30 of its Statute and Articles 25 and 29(2) of its Rules of Procedure. DECLARES: 3 Cfr. Bulacio case, supra note 1, para. 116; Trujillo Oroza case, Reparations, supra note 1, para. 106; Barrios Altos case, supra note 1, para. 41. 4 5 Cfr. Bulacio case, supra note 3; and Caso Barrios Altos, supra note 1, para. 43. Cfr. Bulacio case, supra note 1, para. 117; “Five Pensioners” case. Judgment of February 28, 2003. Series C No. 98, para. 164; and Hilaire, Constantine y Benjamin et al. case. Judgment of June 21, 2002. Series C. No. 94, para. 112.