6 4. That, because the judgments of the Court are final and not subject to appeal, as established in Article 67 of the American Convention, the State is required to promptly and fully comply therewith. 5. That the obligation to comply with the Court’s judgments conforms to a basic principle of the law on the international responsibility of States, as supported by international case law, under which 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, States cannot invoke their internal laws for failure to honor their preestablished international responsibility. The States Parties obligations under the Convention bind all branches and organs of State.4 6. That the States Parties to the Convention are required to guarantee compliance with the provisions thereof and their effects (effet utile) within their own domestic laws. This principle is applicable not only to the substantive provisions of human rights treaties (i.e. those dealing with protected rights) but also to procedural rules, such as those concerning compliance with the decisions of the Court. These obligations are to be interpreted and enforced in a manner such that the protected guarantee is truly practical and effective, bearing in mind the special nature of human rights treaties.5 * * * 7. That regarding the duty to pay indemnification for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages, the representatives stated in the private hearing that the judicial process by which the first payment had been made and by which the second payment would be made obliged the beneficiary of reparations to hire an attorney and appear personally in court to claim payment. The representatives also reported that so far, the State had paid the victims the equivalent of 18% of the amount due for redress and expenses, without considering interest payments for arrearage. The Court takes note of the commitment assumed by Paraguay (infra Considering clause 13) and points out that the State is under obligation to abide by the orders without imposing additional burdens on the victims in order to make redress viable. For this reason, it is essential for the State not only to pay what it owes, but to do so in whatever way is most practical and expeditious for the beneficiaries. 8. That regarding the duty to provide medical and psychological care, the State claimed in the private hearing that health authorities had found it difficult to identify victims in order to provide them with needed health care and, moreover, many victims did not present the identification cards they had received to exempt them from paying 4 Cfr. I/A Court HR. 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, par. 35; I/A Court HR. Case of Palamara-Iribarne v. Chile , Monitoring Compliance with Judgment, supra note 3, Considering clause 5; and I/A Court HR. Case of Molina-Theissen v. Guatemala, Monitoring Compliance with Judgment, supra note 3, Considering clause 3. 5 Cfr. I/A Court HR. Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Competence. Judgment of September 24, 1999, Series C No. 54, par. 37; I/A Court HR. Case of Palamara-Iribarne v. Chile, Monitoring Compliance with Judgment, supra note 3, Considering clause 6; and I/A Court HR. Case of Gómez Palomino v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of October 18, 2007, Considering clause 4.