4. The obligation to comply with the decisions in the Court’s judgments corresponds to a basic principle of the law of the international responsibility of the State, supported by international case law, according to which, States must comply with their international treaty obligations in good faith (pacta sunt servanda) and, as this Court has already indicated and as established in Article 27 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty 3. The treaty obligations of the States Parties are binding for all the powers and organs of the State. 4 5. The States Parties to the Convention must ensure compliance with its provisions and their inherent effects (effet utile) within their respective domestic legal systems. This principle is applicable not only with regard to the substantive norms of human rights treaties (that is, those which contain provisions concerning the protected rights), but also with regard to procedural norms, such as those referring to compliance with the decisions of the Court. These obligations must be interpreted and applied so that the protected guarantee is truly practical and effective, bearing in mind the special nature of human rights treaties. 5 a) Obligation to adopt the measures whereabouts of Ernesto Rafael Castillo Páez available to determine the 6. The State noted that it requested information from the Public Prosecutor’s Office and the Judiciary on the whereabouts of Mr. Ernesto Rafael Castillo Páez, and that once said information was received, it would inform the Court on the matter. 7. The representatives stated that they did not understand the purpose behind the request made to the Public Prosecutor’s Office and the Judiciary regarding information about the whereabouts of Mr. Ernesto Rafael Castillo Páez, given that before both instances there would be no proceeding nor investigation in regard to the matter, because the investigations carried out by these instances were closed, and had nothing more to report to date than the conclusions it made in the judicial proceeding. They also noted that any action carried out in attempts to ascertain and identify the place where the victim's remains would be found, should be “decided” with those who had been tried and convicted of the facts of the case. This being so since these persons can provide information about what they did with the victim and where their remains can be located, and this has not been done, since the State continues by carrying out formalities "that lead to nothing concrete," "extensively delaying compliance with this part of the judgment.” Therefore, they asked the Surinam. Monitoring of Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 4, 2013, Considering clause twenty-four. 3 Cf. International Responsibility for the Promulgation and Enforcement of Laws in Violation of the Convention (Arts. 1 and 2 American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-14/94 of December 9, 1994. Series A No. 14, para. 35, and Case of Castañeda Gutman V. México. Monitoring of Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of August 28, 2013, Considering clause four. Cf. Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. V. Perú. Monitoring of Compliance with Judgment. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of November 17, 1999, Considering clause three, and Case of Castañeda Gutman V. México. Monitoring of Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of August 28, 2013, Considering clause four. 4 Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein V. Perú. Competencia. Judgment of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 24, 1999. Series C No. 54, para. 37, and Case of Castañeda Gutman V. México. Monitoring of Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of August 28, 2013, Considering clause five. 5 3