3 4. That due to the final and non-appealable character of the Judgments of the Court, according to that established in Article 67 of the American Convention, these shall be promptly complied with by the State in an integral form. 5. That the obligation to comply with that established in the decisions of the Court conforms to a basic principle of the law of the international State responsibility, supported by international jurisprudence, according to which the States must comply with their international treaty obligations in good faith (pacta sunt servanda) and, as it has been already stated by this Court and as established in Article 27 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, the States shall not, due to reasons of an internal nature, fail to assume the international responsibility already established3. 6. The States parties to the Convention shall guarantee the compliance with the treaty provisions and their corresponding effects (effet utile) at the level of their respective domestic law. This principle is applied not only in relation to the substantive norms of the human rights treaties (this is, those that contain dispositions regarding the protected rights), but also in relation to rules of procedure, such as those referring to the compliance with the decisions of the Court. These obligations shall be interpreted and enforced in a manner such that the protected guarantee is truly practical and effective, taking into account the special nature of human rights treaties4. * * * 7. Regarding the obligation to publicize, through a radio station with widespread coverage on the Atlantic Coast, several paragraphs of the Judgment, (Operative Paragraph eight), during the private hearing (supra Having Seen 8) the State informed that it is unable to prove the days in which the judgment was publicized through its broadcast in several radio stations since “after having visited [them…] with the purpose of obtaining the proof that [the Court…] request[ed in this sense, they found that…] these radio stations do not keep for a long time their record, this is, they do not have files of th[ese] publication[s]”. The State pointed out, however, “the government consider[ed] and request[ed] in a frank manner, a constructive level of credibility in the precise information submitted regarding the names of the radio stations and the languages in which such publication was carried out, supported by the invoices of the payment made to them, and based upon the logic reasoning that it would make no sense to make the payments for such [sic] and not make them later”. Nevertheless, the State stated that it has the disposition of making the broadcasts again if the Court deems it necessary. Regarding the publication of the Judgment in the Rama language, “which is pending,” the State reiterated its “willingness of prompt compliance, of which it [will] later submit concrete information to the Court.” 8. In this regard, in the private hearing (supra Having Seen 8) the representatives 3 Cf. International Responsibility for the Promulgation and Enforcement of Laws in Violation of the Convention (Articles 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 El Amparo v. Venezuela. Supervision of Compliance with the Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 4, 2010, Considering fifth. and Case of Cesti Hurtado v. Perú, supra note 2, Considering fiftha. 4 Cf. Case of Ivcher-Bronstein v. Peru. Competence. Judgment of September 24, 1999. Series C No. 54, para. 37; Case of El Amparo v. Venezuela, supra note 3, Considering sixth, and Case of Cesti Hurtado v. Perú, supra note 2, Considering sixth.