2 recognized the jurisdiction of the Court on June 24, 1981. 3. That Article 68(1) of the American Convention provides that “[t]he States Parties to the Convention undertake to comply with the judgment of the Court in any case to which they are parties.” For such purpose, the States must guarantee that the decisions of the Court are implemented domestically.1 4. That, in view of the final and non-appealable nature of the judgments of the Court, as established in Article 67 of the American Convention, such judgments should be complied with fully and promptly by the State. 5. That the obligation to comply with the Court’s judgments conforms to a basic principle of the law on the international responsibility of 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 municipal laws to escape their pre-established international responsibility. The State Parties’ obligations under the Convention bind all State branches and organs.2 6. That the States Parties to the Convention must guarantee compliance with the provisions thereof and 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 addressing the protected rights), but also in connection with their procedural provisions, such as those concerning compliance with the Court’s decisions. These 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 * * * 7. That, in their brief of September 14, 2009, the representatives stated that, through various communications addressed to the Government Prosecutor’s Office, the Office of the Ombudsman, the President of the Republic and the People’s Ministry of Domestic Relations and Justice, they requested compliance with the judgment rendered in the instant case, in the context of the 20th anniversary of the events of El Caracazo but that, to date, said communications remain unreplied to. Moreover, they noted that, through 1 Cf. Case of Baena-Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 131; Case of Myrna Mack-Chang V. Guatemala. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Court of August 14, 2009, considering clause No. 4; and Case of Molina-Theissen V. Guatemala Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Court of August 17, 2009, considering clause No. 3. 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 Ituango Massacres V. Colombia. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Court of July 7, 2009, considering clause No. 5; and Case of HerreraUlloa v Costa Rica. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Court of July 9, 2009, considering clause No. 5. 3 Cf. Case of Ivcher-Bronstein v. Peru. Competence. Judgment of September 24, 1999. Series C No. 54, para. 37; Case of the Ituango Massacres. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment, supra note 2, Considering clause No. 6; and Case of Herrera-Ulloa V. Costa Rica. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment, supra note 2, Considering clause No. 6.