-13- which they are parties.” Therefore, State Parties must ensure that the rulings set out in the decisions of the Court are implemented at the domestic level.1 4. In view of the definitive and conclusive nature of the judgments of the Court, pursuant to Article 67 of the Convention, the State must promptly and completely comply with them within the term set for this purpose.2 5. The obligation to comply with the rulings of the decisions of the Court accords with a basic principle of law regarding the international responsibility of the State. That is, States must fulfill their international treaty obligations in good faith (pacta sunt servanda) and, as this Court has previously stated and is set forth in Article 27 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, they cannot refuse to fulfill the previously established international responsibility for domestic reasons.3 Treaty obligations of the State Parties are binding to all authorities and bodies of the State. 6. The State Parties shall guarantee the compliance with treaty obligations and their effective protection (effet utile) in their respective domestic laws. This principle applies not only with regards to substantive rights contained in human rights treaties (that is, those containing provisions on protected rights), but also with regard to procedural rules, such as those related to the compliance with judgments of the Court. Those obligations should be interpreted and applied in such a way that the guarantee is truly practical and effective, taking into account the special nature of human rights treaties.4 7. The State Parties to the Convention that have also recognized the jurisdiction of the Court have the duty to comply with the obligations established by the Court. Accordingly, Suriname shall adopt all necessary measures to give effect to the orders of the Court in its Judgment on preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs delivered by the Court on June 15, 2005 (supra Having Seen paragraph 1). This obligation includes the duty to inform the Court about the measures adopted to comply with the orders of the Court in said decisions. The State’s duty to update the Court on the steps it has taken to comply with each of the orders made in the 1 Cf. Case of Baena-Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 131; Case of García-Asto and Ramírez-Rojas v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 12, 2007, Considering paragraph fourth, and Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 02, 2007, Considering paragraph second. Cf. Case of Barrios Altos v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of November 22, 2002, Considering paragraph second; Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of December 14, 2007, Considering paragraph third, and Case of the “White Van" (Paniagua-Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of October, 2007, Considering paragraph third. 2 3 Cf. Case of the Constitutional Court v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 17, 2004, Considering paragraph third; Case of GarcíaAsto and Ramírez-Rojas v. Peru. supra note 1, Considering paragraph sixth, and Case of Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. supra note 1, Considering paragraph third. 4 Cf. Case of Ivcher-Bronstein v. Peru. Competence. Judgment of September 24, 1999. Series C No. 54, para. 37; Gómez-Palomino v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of October 18, 2007, Considering paragraph fourth, and García-Asto and RamírezRojas v. Peru. supra note 1, Considering paragraph seventh.