2 3. That, in consideration of section 67 of the American Convention which stipulates that the judgment of the Court shall be final and shall not be subject to appeal, such judgment shall be fully and promptly complied with by the State. Furthermore, section 68(1) of the American Convention stipulates that “[t]he States Parties to the Convention undertake to comply with the judgment of the Court in any case to which they are parties.” Therefore, the States must ensure that the rulings set out in the decisions of the Court are implemented at the domestic level.2 4. That the obligation to comply with the rulings of the Court conforms to a basic principle of the law on the international responsibility of States, under which States are required to fulfill 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, States cannot invoke their municipal laws to escape from their pre-established international responsibility.3 The treaty obligations of States Parties are binding on all the States’ powers and organs.4 5. That 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 applies not only in connection with the substantive provisions of human rights treaties (i.e. those dealing with provisions on protected rights) but also in connection with procedural rules, such as the ones concerning compliance with the decisions of the Court. Such obligations are intended to 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 treaties.5 2 Cf. Case of Baena-Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para 131; Case of Garcia-Asto and Ramirez-Rojas v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 12, 2007; fourth Considering Clause; Case of Molina-Theissen v. Guatemala. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of July 10, 2007, second Considering Clause. 3 Cf. International Responsibility for the Promulgation and Enforcement of Laws in Violation of the Convention (Articles 1 and 2 American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-14/94 of September 9, 1994, Series A Nº.14, para. 35; Case of Garcia-Asto and Ramirez-Rojas v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Supra 1; Sixth Having Seen Clause and Case of Molina-Theissen v. Guatemala, Monitoring Compliance with Judgment, supra note 2, Third Having Seen Clause. 4 Cf. Case of Baena-Ricardo et al. v. Panama Competence, supra note 2, para.60; Case of GómezPalomino v. Peru. Monitoring compliance with Judgment. Seventh Having Seen Clause and Case of GarciaAsto and Ramirez-Rojas v. Peru, supra note 2, Sixth Having Seen Clause. 5 Cf. Case of Ivcher-Bronstein v. Peru. Competence. Judgment of September 24, 1999. Series C No. 54, para. 37; Case of Garcia-Asto and Ramirez-Rojas v. Peru, Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 12, 2007, Seventh Having Seen Clause; Case of Molina-Theissen v. Guatemala. Monitoring compliance with Judgment, supra note 2, Fourth Having Seen Clause.