3 6. 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.4 * * * 8. With regards to the payments ordered for non-pecuniary damages, costs, and expenses (operative paragraphs thirteen and sixteen of the Judgment), Panama reported that on March 29, 2010, it paid Mr. Tristán Donoso B/. 30.000,00 (thirty thousand balboas, equivalent to thirty thousand US dollars). The state submitted a copy of the settlement agreement signed by the Secretary of Economy and Finance of Panama and Mr. Tristán Donoso. 9. The representatives confirmed that the payments “were duly made,” therefore they requested the Court to establish that this reparation measure “has been complied by the State.” 10. The Commission took note of the information provided by the State. 11. Based on the information provided by the parties, the Court concludes that the State has fully complied with the payments corresponding to the compensation for non-pecuniary damages and the reimbursement of costs and expenses set forth in operative paragraphs thirteen and sixteen of the Judgment. * * * 12. In relation to the obligation to annul the criminal conviction against Mr. Tristán Donoso and all the consequences arising from it (operative paragraph fourteen of the Judgment), the State reported and submitted a copy of the documents that confirm the actions taken. On May 12, 2010, through Agreement Number 240, the Full Supreme Court of Justice expressed that “the Republic of Panama, as a member of the international community, recognizes, respects, and complies with the decisions of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights,” and decided to submit this Court’s 3 Cf. Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 17, 1999. Series C No. 59, Considering three; Case of Baena Ricardo et al. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment, supra note 1, Considering five, and Case of Vargas Areco, supra note 1, Considering four. 4 Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Competence. Judgment of September 24, 1999. Series C No. 54, para. 37; Case of Baena Ricardo et al. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment, supra note 1, Considering six, and Case of Vargas Areco, supra note 1, Considering five.