3 case to which they are parties.” For such purposes, States are required to ensure the implementation of the Court’s rulings at the domestic level.2 4. That, given that the Court’s judgments are final and not subject to appeal, as set out in Article 67 of the American Convention, said judgments are to be promptly and fully complied with by the State. 5. That the obligation to comply with the judgments of the Court conforms to a basic principle of the Law of International Responsibility of States, upheld by international case law, under which States are required to comply with their international treaty obligations in good faith (pacta sunt servanda) and, as previously held by this Court and provided for in Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969, States may not invoke the provisions of its internal law to escape their pre-established international responsibility.3 The treaty obligations of States Parties are binding on all government branches and agencies. 6. That the States Parties to the Convention are required to guarantee compliance with treaty provisions and their effects (effet utile) at the domestic level. This principle is applicable not only with regard to the substantive provisions of human rights treaties (i.e. those dealing with the protected rights) but also with regard to procedural rules, such as those concerning compliance with the decisions of the Court. These obligations are to be interpreted and enforced in a manner such that the protected guarantee is truly practical and effective, bearing in mind the special nature of human rights treaties.4 7. That the States Parties to the American Convention which have accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court are under a duty to fulfill the obligations imposed by this Court. This obligation includes the State’s duty to report on the measures adopted to comply with the orders of the Court in said judgments. Timely fulfillment of the State’s obligation to report to the Court on the manner in which it is complying with each of the aspects ordered by the latter is essential to evaluate the level of compliance with the Judgment as a whole.5 * 2 Cf. Case of Baena-Ricardo et al. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 131 and Case of Ivcher-Bronstein v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of November 24, 2009, Considering clause No. 3, and Case of the “Five Pensioners” v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 24, 2009, Considering clause No. 4. 3 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 Ivcher-Bronstein, supra note 2, Considering clause No. 5, and Case of the “Five Pensioners”, supra note 2, Considering clause No. 6. 4 Cf. Case of Ivcher-Bronstein v. Peru. Competence. Judgment of September 24, 1999. Series C No. 54, para. 37; Case of Ivcher-Bronstein, supra note 2, Considering clause No. 6, and Case of the “Five Pensioners”, supra note 2, Considering clause No. 7. 5 Cf. Case of the “Five Pensioners” v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of November 17, 2004, Considering clause No. 5; Case of Ivcher-Bronstein, supra note 2, Considering clause No. 7, and Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute” v. Paraguay. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 19, 2009, Considering clause No. 7.