4 conventional obligations of the States Parties are binding upon all of the State’s branches of government and organs.4 6. That the States Parties to the American Convention must ensure compliance with the Convention’s provisions and their effects (effet utile) at their domestic law level. Such principle applies both to substantive rules in human rights treaties (i.e., provisions on protected rights) and to procedural rules, such as provisions on compliance with the Court’s decisions. These obligations must be interpreted and applied in such a way that the protected safeguard is truly practical and effective, taking into account the special character of human rights treaties.5 7. That the States Parties to the Convention who have acknowledged the Court’s contentious jurisdiction have the duty to comply with the obligations imposed by the Court. Such obligations include the duty of the State to report to the Court on the measures adopted in compliance with the Court’s rulings. The prompt observance of a State’s obligation to inform the Court on the manner in which it is carrying out each of the instructions set out by the Court is essential to evaluate compliance with the Judgment as a whole.6 8. That the Court finds the hearing held to monitor the issues pending compliance in this case very instrumental. * * * 9. That, with regard to the obligation to annul in whole the judgment issued on November 12, 1999 by the Criminal Court for the First Court Circuit of San José, in connection with the damages and court and other costs awarded against Mr. Mauricio Herrera-Ulloa and the La Nación newspaper, represented by Mr. Fernán Vargas Rohrmoser (operative paragraph No. 4 of the Judgment), the State informed that “failed action was taken before civil courts seeking the recovery of sixty-three million eight hundred and eleven thousand colones, plus interest as damages and court costs for La Nación S.A. corporation”. Said corporation filed ordinary fiscal civil proceedings against the State before a Contentious-Administrative and Civil Fiscal Court. 10. That, afterwards, Costa Rica informed that, through judgment No. 823-2007 of June 22, 2007, the Contentious-Administrative and Civil Fiscal Court had granted relief to La 4 Cf. Case of Castillo-Petruzzi et al. v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 17, 1999. Series C No. 59; Considering clause No. 3; Case of CantoralHuamaní and García-Santa Cruz v. Peru, supra note 2, Considering clause No. 5, and Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo-Íñiguez v. Ecuador, supra nota 2, Considering clause No. 5. 5 Cf. Case of Ivcher-Bronstein v. Peru. Competence. Judgment of September 24, 1999, Series C No. 54, para. 37; Case of Cantoral-Huamaní and García-Santa Cruz v. Peru, supra note 2, Considering clause No. 6, and Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo-Íñiguez v. Ecuador, supra nota 2, Considering clause No. 6. 6 Cf. Case of Barrios Altos v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 22, 2005, Considering clause No. 7; Case of Cantoral-Huamaní and García Santa Cruz v. Peru, supra note 2, Considering clause No. 7, and Case of the Miguel Castro-Castro Prison v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of April 28, 2009, considering clause No. 7.