4 obligations in good faith (pacta sunt servanda) and, as this Court has already indicated and as established in Article 27 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty.2 The treaty obligations of the States Parties are binding for all the powers and organs of the State.3 6. The States Parties to the Convention must ensure compliance with its provisions and their inherent effects (effet utile) within their respective domestic legal systems. This principle is applicable not only with regard to the substantive norms of human rights treaties (that is, those which contain provisions concerning the protected rights), but also with regard to procedural norms, such as those referring to compliance with the decisions of the Court. These obligations shall be interpreted and applied so that the protected guarantee is truly practical and effective, bearing in mind the special nature of human rights treaties.4 a) Regarding the obligation to disseminate the judgment by radio and television within six months 7. With regard to the dissemination of the judgment by radio and television (tenth operative paragraph of the judgment), the State reiterated that “it had made two significant efforts to comply with this obligation”: (i) the public apology televised simultaneously by all the official State channels on December 10, 2008, and (ii) the documentary “El Derecho a la Memoria,” with the participation of Juan Carlos Chaparro and his representatives. It added that, regarding the dissemination of the documentary on Ecuador TV, “Juan Carlos Chaparro […] has stated that he wishes this aspect of the judgment to be suspended while the arbitration procedure […] is conducted” so that, when it has been completed, “information will be provided on the agreements reached by the Ecuadorian State and Mr. [..] Chaparro in order to comply with this operative paragraph. 8. Mr. Chaparro confirmed that “the information provided by the State is correct” and that, based on the agreement reached by both parties, this aspect would be complied with “when the arbitration procedure ordered by the [Court] had been completed.” 9. The Commission assessed positively the efforts made by the State and indicated that it “awaited information on any progress in this regard.” 10. In its previous order, the Court acknowledged the measures taken by the State to disseminate the judgment by television and accepted that the State had complied partially with this obligation, by the simultaneous broadcast of the public apology and the documentary “El Derecho a la Memoria” on all the official State television channels. Regarding the dissemination of the latter by Ecuador TV, the Court takes note of the 2 Cf. International Responsibility for the Promulgation and Enforcement of Laws in Violation of the Convention (Arts. 1 and 2 American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-14/94 of December 9, 1994. Series A No. 14, para. 35; Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the acting President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of December 21, 2010, sixth considering paragraph, and Case of Valle Jaramillo v. Colombia, supra note 1, fourth considering paragraph. 3 Cf. Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Court of November 17, 1999, third considering paragraph; Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru, supra note 2, sixth considering paragraph, and Case of Valle Jaramillo v. Colombia, supra note 1, fourth considering paragraph. 4 Cf. Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Competence. Judgment of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 24, 1999. Series C No. 54, para. 37; Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru, supra note 2, seventh considering paragraph, and Case of Valle Jaramillo v. Colombia, supra note 1, fifth considering paragraph.