3 4.- We must also consider that, taking into consideration that, pursuant with International Law, “no State may invoke its domestic legislation to avoid complying with an international obligation,”7 the State cannot enforce a decision made by any of its national or domestic courts —even indirectly— as justification for the violation of its international obligation to comply with the Court’s Judgments or as a reason to exclude the illegality incurred through said non-compliance, especially if this results from the State’s conduct.8 5.- Likewise, I should mention that even though the obligation to investigate ordered by the Judgment in this case is, in the perspective of International Law, a behavioral obligation, it does not state the means through which it must be achieved, thus not only the State must —in accordance with its internal, domestic, or exclusive jurisdiction— determine such means, but they may also consist of, if necessary, previous, complementary, or substituting acts of a legislative, administrative, or any other nature to allow the execution of the judicial proceedings and not only the latter.9 Article 32 of the Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts: “Irrelevance of Internal Law. The responsible State may not rely on the provisions of its internal law as justification for failure to comply with its obligations in accordance with this part.” Cf. International Law Commission of the UN. Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, adopted by the International Law Commission in its 53rd Session (A/56/10) and annexed by the AG in its Decision 56/83, of December 12, 2001. On its part, Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties: “Internal law and observance of treaties. A party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty. This rule is without prejudice to article 46.” 7 8 It is important to recall that in the mentioned Draft Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, that summarizes customs, not only does it not include a situation such as the one described as one of the causes that excludes the illegality, but it expressly states the State may not be invoked those causes which in some way it been responsible for. Examples: Articles 23, force majeure, 24 extreme danger, and 25, necessity. Cf. International Law Commission of the UN. Draft Articles on Responsibility of States … (supra note 7).