8 5. That, given the final and not-subject-to-appeal nature of the Court’s judgments, as established in Article 67 of the American Convention, said judgments are to be promptly and fully complied with by the State. 6. That the obligation to comply with the judgments of the Court conforms to a basic principle of the law of 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 municipal laws to escape their preestablished international responsibility.2 The treaty obligations of States Parties are binding on all State powers and organs. 7. That the States Parties to the American Convention are required to guarantee compliance with the provisions thereof and secure their effects (effet utile) at the domestic law level. This principle applies not only in connection with the substantive provisions of human rights treaties (i.e. those dealing with the protected rights) but also in connection with procedural rules, such as the ones concerning compliance with the decisions of the Court. Such obligations are to be interpreted and enforced in a manner such that the protected guarantee is truly practical and effective, considering the special nature of human rights treaties.3 8. That those States Parties to the American Convention that have accepted the binding jurisdiction of the Court are under a duty to fulfill the obligations set by the Court. In this regard, Peru is required to take such measures as may be necessary in order to effectively comply with the Judgment of the Court of March 3, 2005 (supra Having Seen clause No. 1). This obligation includes the State’s duty to report on the measures adopted to comply with such decisions of the Court. Timely fulfillment of the State’s obligation to report to the Court on the exact manner in which it is complying with each of the aspects ordered by the latter is essential to evaluate the status of compliance in this case. * * * 9. That, in monitoring comprehensive compliance with the Judgment in the instant case, and after having analyzed the information supplied by the State, the Commission and the representatives in their briefs on compliance with the Judgment (supra Having Seen clauses No. 2 to 4), the Court has verified which aspects of such Judgment have been complied with by the State and which ones are still pending compliance. 10. That the State has complied with its obligation to: 2 Cf. Case of the “Five Pensioners”, supra note 1, Considering clause No. 7; Case of BámacaVelásquez, supra note 1, Considering clause No. 5; and Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute,” supra note 1, Considering clause No. 5. 3 Cf. Case of the “Five Pensioners”, supra note 1, Considering clause No. 8; Case of BámacaVelásquez, supra note 1, Considering clause No. 6; and Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute,” supra note 1, Considering clause No. 6.