-3 4. That in view of the definitive and unappealable nature of the judgments of the Court, pursuant to Article 67 of the American Convention, the State must comply with them promptly and completely. 5. That the obligation to comply with the decisions in the Court’s judgments corresponds to a basic principle of the law of the international responsibility of the State, supported by international case law, according to which a State must fulfill its international treaty obligations in good faith (pacta sunt servanda) and, as this Court has already indicated and as established in Article 27 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a 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 with regard not only to the substantive norms of human rights treaties, but also to the procedural norms, such as those referring to compliance with the decisions of the Court. These obligations shall be interpreted and applied so that the guarantee protected 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 compulsory jurisdiction of the Court have the duty to comply with the obligations ordered by the Court. These obligations include the State’s duty to report to the Court on the measures adopted to comply with the measures ordered by the Court in its decisions. The reporting obligation is twofold in nature and effective compliance requires the formal presentation of a document within the allotted time and with specific, true, current and detailed information on the issues to which this obligation refers.4 The State’s prompt compliance with this obligation to inform the Court about the measures it is taking to comply with each element ordered by the Court is fundamental for assessing the status of compliance with the judgment as a whole. * 2 Cf. Case of the Constitutional Court. Compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 7, 2006, fifth considering paragraph; Case of the 19 Tradesmen. Compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 2, 2006, fifth considering paragraph; Case of Ricardo Canese. Compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 2, 2006, fifth considering paragraph. 3 Cf. Case of the Constitutional Court. Compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 7, 2006, sixth considering paragraph; Case of the 19 Tradesmen. Compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 2, 2006, sixth considering paragraph; Case of Ricardo Canese. Compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 2, 2006, sixth considering paragraph. 4 Cf. Case of the Mendoza Prisons. Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of March 30, 2006, fourteenth considering paragraph; Matter of the Jiguamiandó and the Curbaradó Communities. Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 7, 2006, sixteenth considering paragraph; and Matter of the Peace Community of San José de Apartadó. Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 2, 2006, eighteenth considering paragraph.