6 4. That by virtue of the nature of the Court’s judgments as final and not subject to appeal, pursuant with that established in Article 67 of the American Convention, they must be promptly fulfilled by the State in all of their aspects. 5. That the obligation to comply with the judgments of the Court conforms to a basic principle of the law of the international responsibility of the States, as supported by international case law, under which States are required to comply with the international treaty obligations in good faith (pacta sunt servanda) and, as previously held by the Court and provided for in Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969, States cannot invoke their municipal laws to escape their preestablished international responsibility. The treaty obligations of States Parties are binding on all State powers and organs.5 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 applies not only in connection with the substantive provisions of human rights treaties (that is, those dealing with provisions on protected rights) but also in connection with procedural rules, such as the ones concerning compliance with the decisions of the Court. Such obligations are intended to be interpreted and enforced in a manner such that the protected guarantee is truly practical and effective, taking into account the special nature of human rights treaties.6 * * * Obligation to investigate the facts and, in its case, punish those responsible (seventh and eighth operative paragraphs of the Judgment) 7. That with regard to the duty to immediately carry out the due diligences to activate and effectively complete, within a reasonable period of time, the investigation to determine the responsibility of all the participants in the Pueblo Bello massacre as well as of those responsible through actions or omissions of the failure to comply with the state’s obligation to guarantee the rights violated, as well regarding the search for the missing victims (infra Considering Clause number 19), the State requested that the information provided regarding the criminal proceedings not be mentioned in any public document. The State justified its request on the fact that the investigation started before the Human Rights Unit of the Solicitor General of the Republic is partially in a preliminary stage, which implies that the actions may only be of the knowledge of the parties to the process. In this sense, the State held, “the nonDismissed Congressional Employees (Aguado Alfaro et al.) v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the President of the Court of June 8, 2009, considering clause number 3. 5 Cf. International Responsibility for the Promulgation and Enforcement of Laws in Violation of the Convention (Arts. 1 and 2 American Convention of Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-14/94 of December 9, 1994. Series A No. 14, para. 35; Case of Gómez Palamino v. Peru, supra note 4, Considering clause number 5; and Case of the Dismissed Congressional Employees (Aguado Alfaro et al.) v. Peru, supra note 4, considering clause number 4. 6 Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Competence. Judgment of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 24, 1999. Series C No. 54, para. 37; Case of Gómez Palomino v. Peru, supra note 4, Considering clause number 6; and Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the President of the Court of May 20, 2009, considering clause number 6.