4 treaty.2 The treaty obligations of the States Parties are binding for all the powers and organs of the State. 6. That 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.3 7. That the States Parties to the Convention that have accepted the Court’s compulsory jurisdiction must comply with the obligations established by the Court. In this regard, Peru must adopt all necessary measures to comply effectively with the decisions of the Court in the Judgment (supra Having seen paragraph 1). This obligation includes the State’s duty to report on the measures adopted to comply with the rulings of the Court in that judgment. The prompt implementation of the State’s obligation to report to the Court on how each element ordered by the Court is being fulfilled is essential to assess the status of compliance in the case.4 Moreover, the OAS General Assembly has reiterated that, for the Court to comply fully with its obligation to inform the Assembly about compliance with its rulings, the States Parties must provide it with the information it requests promptly.5 * * * 8. That, when monitoring full compliance with the Judgment in this case, and after examining the information provided by the State, the Commission and the victims and their representatives in their briefs on compliance with the Judgment (supra Having seen paragraphs 4, 5 and 6), the Court has verified the aspects of the Judgment that the State has complied with, as well as those that remain pending. 9. That the information submitted by the State concerning the obligation to investigate the facts relating to this case within a reasonable time, in order to identify, prosecute and, if applicable, punish all the perpetrators of the violations committed to the detriment of Rafael Samuel and Emilio Moisés Gómez Paquiyauri (ninth operative paragraph of the Judgment), Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 22, 2002, second and third considering paragraph; Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 8, 2008, fifth considering paragraph, and García Asto and Ramírez Rojas v. Peru. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 12, 2007, seventh considering paragraph. 3 Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein. Competence. Judgment of September 24, 1999. Series C No. 54, para. 37; Yakye Axa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 8, 2008, sixth considering paragraph, and Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay, supra note 2, sixth considering paragraph. 4 Cf. Case of Liliana Ortega et al. Provisional measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of December 2, 2003, twelfth considering paragraph; Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 11, 2008, sixth considering paragraph, and Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community v. Nicaragua. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of March 14, 2008, sixth considering paragraph. 5 General Assembly, Resolution AG/RES. 2292 (XXXVII-O/07) adopted at the fourth plenary session held on June 5, 2007, entitled “Observations and recommendations on the Annual Report of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights”. 2