2. In conformity with the provisions of Article 67 of the American Convention, the State must promptly comply with the judgments of the Court in their entirety. Moreover, Article 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.” To this end, the States must ensure the implementation at the domestic level of the Court’s decisions in its judgments. 1 The foregoing obligation includes the duty of the State to report to the Court on the measures adopted to comply with the rulings of the Court. The prompt implementation of the State’s obligation to report to the Court on how each aspect ordered by the Court is being fulfilled is essential in order to assess the status of compliance with the Judgment as a whole. 2 3. The obligation to comply with the decisions in the Court’s judgments corresponds to a basic principle of the law of international responsibility of the State, supported by international case law, according to which, States must comply with their international treaty obligations in good faith (pacta sunt servanda) and, as this Court has already indicated and as established in Article 27 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a party may not invoke the provisions of its domestic law as justification for its failure to comply with its already established international responsibility. 3 The treaty obligations of the States Parties are binding for all the powers and organs of the State. 4 4. 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 is applicable not only with regard to the substantive norms of human rights treaties (that is, those which contain provisions concerning the protected rights), but also with regard to procedural norms, such as those referring to compliance with the decisions of the Court. These obligations shall be interpreted and applied so that the protected guarantee is truly practical and effective, bearing in mind the special nature of human rights treaties. 5 5. As a preliminary issue, the Court observes that on July 14, 2011, the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (hereinafter “the Supreme Court of Justice” or “the SCJN”) issued a “Ruling of the Court in Plenary” in the case file “Various matters 1 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. V. Panamá. Jurisdiction. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, paras. 60 and 131, and Case of Abrill Alosilla et al. V. Perú. Monitoring of Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 22, 2013, Considering clause 3. 2 Cf. Case of Five Pensioners V. Perú. Monitoring of Compliance with Judgment. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of November 17, 2004, Considering clause 5, and Case of Abrill Alosilla et al. V. Perú. Monitoring of Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 22, 2013, Considering clause 6. 3 Cf. 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. Series A No. 14, para. 35, and Case of Abrill Alosilla et al. V. Perú. Monitoring of Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 22, 2013, Considering clause 4. 4 Cf. Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. V. Perú. Monitoring of Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 17, 1999, Considering clause 3, and Case of Abrill Alosilla et al. V. Perú. Monitoring of Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 22, 2013, Considering clause 4. 5 Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein V. Perú. Jurisdiction. Judgment of September 24, 1999. Series C No. 54, para. 37, and Case of Abrill Alosilla et al. V. Perú. Monitoring of Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 22, 2013, Considering clause 5. 3