4 any case to which they are parties.” To that end, the States are required to guarantee the adoption at the domestic level of the measures ordered by the Court.1 4. That given the final and unappealable nature of the Court’s judgments, as established in Article 67 of the American Convention, said judgments are to be promptly and fully complied with by the State. 5. That the obligation to comply with the Court’s judgments conforms to a basic tenet of the law of the international responsibility of the States, as supported by international case law, under which the 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, domestic laws may not be invoked to justify nonfulfillment of pre-established international responsibility. The treaty obligations of States Parties are binding on all State powers and organs.2 6. That the States Parties to the American Convention are required to guarantee compliance with the provisions thereof and to secure 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 dealing with the protected rights), but also in connection with procedural rules, such as those concerning compliance with the decisions of the Court. Such 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 those States Parties to the American Convention that have accepted the binding jurisdiction of the Court are under a duty to fulfill the obligations set by the Court. This obligation includes the State's duty to inform of the measures adopted to comply with the provisions of the above-mentioned Court’s Judgment. Timely fulfillment of the State’s obligation to report to the Court on the manner in which it is complying with each of the measures ordered by the latter is essential to evaluate progress in compliance with the Judgement as a whole.4 Furthermore, OAS General Assembly has reiterated that, in order for the Court to fully comply with its obligation to inform it on compliance with the Court’s judgments, it is necessary that the States Parties duly submit the information the Court may request them.5 1 Cf. Case of Baena-Ricardo et al v. Panama. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 131; Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community v. Nicaragua. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Court of April 3, 2009, Considering clause 3, and Case of Baldeón-García v. Perú. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Court of April 4, 2009, Considering clause 3. 2 Cf. I/A Court H.R. 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, para. 35; Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni, supra note 1, Considering clause 5, and Case of Baldeón-García, supra note 1, Considering clause 5. 3 Cf. Case of Ivcher-Bronstein v. Perú. Competence. Judgment of September 24, 1999, Series C No. 54, Para. 37; Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community, supra note 1, Considering clause 6, and Case of Baldeón-García, supra note 1, Considering clause 6. 4 Cf. Case of Barrios Altos v. Perú. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of September 22, 2005, Considering clause 7; Case of Suárez-Rosero v. Ecuador. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the President of the Court of March 20, 2009, Considering clause 5, and Case of Baldeón-García, supra note 1, Considering clause 7. 5 General Assembly, Resolution AG/RES. 2292 (XXXVII-O/07) approved at the fourth Plenary Session held on June 5, 2007, entitled “Observations and Recommendations on the Annual Report of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.”