4 Parties’ obligations under the Convention bind all State branches and organs.2 6. The States Parties to the Convention must guarantee compliance with the provisions thereof and 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 addressing the protected rights), but also in connection with their procedural provisions, such as those concerning compliance with the Court’s decisions. These 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 7. The State Parties to the Convention have also recognized the binding jurisdiction of the Court have the duty to comply with the obligations established by it. Accordingly, Suriname shall adopt all necessary measures to give effect to the Court’s decisions of November 28, 2007 (supra Having Seen clause No. 1). This obligation includes the duty to inform the Court about the actions adopted to comply with the reparations ordered by the Court, which are pending fulfillment. * * * 8. That regarding the State’s obligation to “delimit, demarcate, and grant collective title over the territory of the members of the Saramaka people, in accordance with their customary laws, and through previous, effective[,] and fully informed consultations” with the Saramaka people, the State affirmed that it “[attempts] to implement [changes] as much as possible in harmony and full consensus with the petitioners[,]” and also noted that “regular consultations[, dates unspecified,] are held with the representatives of the petitioners, in this case the Association of Saramaka Authorities (VSG). It also informed that on “June 2008 a grankrutu meeting was held in Pikin Sloc to inform the Saramaka communities about the judgment of the Court.” The State assured that it is “undertak[ing] specific steps[, without further elaborating,] to address the issue of the recognition of tribal rights in as broad as balanced a manner as possible from the viewpoint of sustainability and cultural and ethnic tolerance.” Moreover, the State informed that because “Surinamese society knows many tribal groups that reside together[, t]he [State] is pursuing an integral approach.” In that regard, it informed that “[t]he project Support for the Development of the Interior [(hereinafter the “SSDI project”)] [will be in charge of] the legal framework, collective rights, delimitation and demarcation of the living areas of the tribal communities; creating the conditions for sustainable solution[s].” The SSDI project, funded by the Inter-American Development Bank (hereinafter “IADB”), “has as one of its objectives the drafting of legislation on the rights of indigenous and tribal peoples.” 2 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; Case of La Cantuta v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Court of December 7, 2009, Considering clause No. 5, and Case of CantoralBenavides v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Court of July 9, 2009, Considering clause No. 5. 3 Cf. Case of Ivcher-Bronstein v. Peru. Competence. Judgment of September 24, 1999. Series C No. 54, para. 37; Case of La Cantuta v. Peru, supra note 2, Considering clause No. 6, and Case of Cantoral Benavides v. Peru, supra note 2, Considering clause No. 6.