4 case to which they are parties.” Consequently, the State must ensure the implementation of the decisions in the Court’s judgments at the domestic level.1 4. That in view of the final and unappealable character of the judgments of the Court established in Article 67 of the American Convention, the State must comply with them fully and promptly. 5. That the obligation to comply with the decisions in the Court’s judgments corresponds to a basic principle of the law of the international responsibility of the State, supported by international case law, according to which a State must comply with its international treaty 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. 6. That 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.3 7. That the States Parties to the Convention that have accepted the Court’s compulsory jurisdiction must comply with the obligations established by the Court. In this regard, Paraguay must adopt all necessary measures to comply effectively with the decisions of the Court in the judgment on merits, reparations and costs of August 31, 2004, as well as in this Order on the status of compliance with that judgment. This obligation includes the State’s duty to report on the measures adopted to comply with the rulings of the Court in the judgment. The prompt implementation of the State’s obligation to report to the Court on how each element ordered by the Court is being fulfilled is essential to assess the status of compliance in the case. * * * 8. That, to monitor full compliance with the judgment delivered in this case, the Court has examined the information provided by the State and by the Inter-American Commission in their briefs on compliance with the reparations. The Court has verified Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 131. 1 2 Cf. Case of Cantos. Compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 28, 2005, fifth considering paragraph; Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers. Compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 17, 2005, fifth considering paragraph; and Case of Baena Ricardo et al. Compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 28, 2005, fifth considering paragraph. 3 Cf. Case of Cantos. Compliance with judgment, supra note 2, sixth considering paragraph; Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers. Compliance with judgment, supra note 2, sixth considering paragraph; and Case of Baena Ricardo et al, supra note 2, sixth considering paragraph. Also, cf., inter alia, the case of YATAMA. Judgment of June 23, 2005. Series C No. 127, para. 170; Case of the Indigenous Community Yakye Axa. Judgment of June 17, 2005. Series C No. 125, para. 101; and Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters. Judgment of March 1, 2005. Series C No. 120, para. 64.