5 responsibility. The treaty obligations of States Parties are binding on all State bodies 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 regarding the obligation of the State to provide Luis Alberto Cantoral-Benavides with a scholarship for higher or university studies to cover the costs of a degree in the profession of his choosing and his living expenses for the duration of such studies, at an educational institution of recognized academic excellence to be mutually chosen by the State and the victim (sixth operative paragraph of the Judgment on reparations), the representatives informed with great satisfaction that Luis Alberto Cantoral had completed his studies in law at San Judas Tadeo University, Brazil. Notwithstanding, they claimed that even though the State “has complied with the payment of most expenses in connection with such scholarship […], there is a significant difference between the payments made […] by the State and the actual expenses incurred […] regarding the 2007 and 2008 academic years,” as a 5 percent increase was applied to the expenses corresponding to said years, which was not in line with the actual expenses incurred, in contrast with the previous academic years, regarding which the State paid the actual expenses incurred. They further pointed out that in February 2008, when the payment due for the 2007 academic year was made, the State’s representative acknowledged the difference, “but pointed out that modifying the amount would entail a delay in the payment of the expenses corresponding to 2007” and, therefore, they accepted the amount proposed, at the same time that it was agreed that payment for the 2008 expenses would cover the actual expenses incurred, which did not occur. In view of this, the representatives pointed out that there is an overall difference of 12,157.156 Brazilian reales between the amount paid by the State and the actual expenses incurred. Furthermore, they pointed out that payment of default interests resulting from the delay in the above-mentioned annual payments was pending. Besides, payment of the sums corresponding to 2009 and the default interests resulting from its delay is pending. Therefore, they requested the Court to keep monitoring compliance with this obligation until all expenses in connection with higher studies, living expenses and interests thereon have been fully paid. 8. That in its report, the State referred to the information that was included in the agreement signed in 2002 at the Ministry of Justice in connection with compliance with the Judgment on reparations, but has submitted no up-to-date information regarding this 2 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 the Caracazo v. Venezuela, supra note 1, Considering clause 5, and Case of Cantoral-Huamaní and García-Santa Cruz v. Peru, supra note 1, Considering clause 5. 3 Cf. Case of Ivcher-Bronstein. Competence. Judgment of September 24, 1999. Series C No. 54, para. 37; Case of the Caracazo v. Venezuela, supra note 1, Considering clause 6, and Case of Cantoral-Huamaní and GarcíaSanta Cruz v. Peru, supra note 1, Considering clause 6.