2. Peru has been a State Party to the American Convention (hereinafter, the “American Convention” or the “Convention”) since July 28, 1978, and accepted the binding jurisdiction of the Court on January 21, 1981. 3. In accordance with Article 67 of the American Convention, States must comply promptly with all aspects of the judgments of the Court. In addition, Article 68(1) of the American Conventions 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 that the decisions in the Court’s judgments are implemented at the domestic level.1 4. The obligation to comply with the decisions in the Court’s judgments corresponds to a basic principle of the law on the international responsibility of the State, supported by international case law, according to which, a State must comply with its 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 internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty.2 The treaty obligations of the States Parties are binding for all the powers and organs of the State.3 5. 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.4 a) Regarding the obligation “to conduct the corresponding investigations and apply the pertinent punishments to those responsible for failing to abide by the judgments delivered by the Peruvian courts in the applications for protective measures filed by the victims (sixth operative paragraph of the judgment) 6. The State indicated that “[w]ith regard to the criminal proceedings […], the Court itself recognize[d] that they had been exhausted” in its order on monitoring compliance of November 24, 2009. In this regard, the State added that the fact that “the result of these actions has not been favorable to the complainants – because it was not determined that an offense had been committed – does not detract from the fact that the investigations were conducted by competent bodies and that the remedies provided by Peruvian law have been exhausted.” Regarding the administrative or disciplinary actions, the State indicated that, the said order of November 24, 2009, was “the first time the Court has alluded to that type of action; thus, [in the State’s opinion,] it is interpreting 1 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 60, and Case of the Yean and Bosico Girls v. Dominican Republic. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of October 10, 2011, fourth considering paragraph. 2 Cf. International Responsibility for the Promulgation and Enforcement of Laws in Violation of the Convention (Arts. 1 and 2 American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-14/94 of December 9, 1994. Series A No. 14, para. 35, and Case of the Yean and Bosico Girls v. Dominican Republic, supra note 1, fifth considering paragraph. 3 Cf. Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al v. Peru. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of November 17, 1999, third considering paragraph and Case of the Yean and Bosico Girls v. Dominican Republic, supra note 1, sixth considering paragraph. 4 Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Competence. Judgment of September 24, 1999. Series C No. 54, para. 37, and Case of the Yean and Bosico Girls v. Dominican Republic, supra note 1, fifth considering paragraph. 2