3 conventional obligations of State Parties are binding on all branches and bodies of the State.3 5. The States Parties to the Convention must ensure compliance with the provisions and their effectiveness (effet utile) within their respective legal systems. This principle applies not only to the substantive norms of human rights treaties (i.e., provisions on protected rights), but also in relation to procedural rules, such as those relating to compliance with decisions of the Court. These obligations must be interpreted and applied in such a manner that the protected guarantee is truly practical and effective, taking into account the special nature of human rights treaties4. * * * 6. Regarding the obligation to undertake, in full compliance with judicial guarantees and in a reasonable time period, all necessary actions to identify, prosecute and punish, if applicable, all those responsible for the violations committed in this case (operative paragraph nine of the Judgment), the State provided information on the case file titled "Aníbal López Insfrán and Eduardo Riveros on Homicide in Villarica," begun on December 31, 1989. In this regard, it reported on a recourse to appeal and annulment that was filed by the defense, whereby on July 11, 2005, the Court of Appeal of Villarica ruled to "dismiss the right to not respond to the grievances of the appellant," and, subsequently, in a decision and Judgment of September 13, 2006, "a) withdrew the annulment recourse and b) confirmed the SD No. 01 of March 2, 2005, whereby the citizen was sentenced to one year in prison." The State argued that "[t]he reopening of the case, to investigate the involvement or otherwise of persons other than Lopez Insfrán and Riveros would constitute a violation of constitutional rights and guarantees in criminal matters, against which the State [... ] cannot proceed, not even with the explicit order of an international body." The State also considered that a recourse for review would not be appropriate, "unless procedurally beneficial for those convicted, which does not correspond in [this] case.” It also indicated that "it is also impossible to reopen the case for to the punishable act of torture, because [it would] constitute double jeopardy," since according to the State "torture had already been investigated as part of the case file for the investigation into the crimes against the child Vargas Areco." In short, the State manifested "[its] inability to effectively comply with [this point] of the Judgment." 7. According to the representatives, the information provided by the State "makes it possible to conclude that the proceeding has not been reopened and no proceeding has been undertaken to investigate the torture that the child Vargas Areco was subjected to." They also noted that the State "cannot invoke exemption from its obligation to investigate and punish through Judgments issued in proceedings that did not comply with the standards of the American Convention." Thus, it must take concrete steps to conduct an investigation in accordance with these parameters. 3 Cf. Case of CastilloPertuza et al. v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Court of November 17, 1999. Series C No. 59, Considering Clause three; Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 28, 2010, Considering Clause five, andCase of Heliodoro Portugal, supranote 1, Considering Clause four. 4 Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Competence. Judgment of September 24, 1999. Series C No. 54, para. 37; Case of Yatama, supra note 2, Considering Clause six, andCase of Heliodoro Portugal, supra note 1, Considering Clause 5.