3 4. That, in consideration of section 67 of the American Convention which stipulates that the judgment of the Court shall be final and shall not be subject to appeal, such judgment shall be fully and promptly complied with by the State. 5. That the obligation to comply with the rulings of the Court conforms to a basic principle of the law on the international responsibility of States, under which States are required to fulfill their 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 from their pre-established international responsibility. The treaty obligations of States Parties are binding on all State powers and organs.2 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 (i.e. those dealing with the 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.3 7. That those States Parties to the American Convention that have accepted the binding jurisdiction of the Court are under a duty to fulfill the obligations set by the Tribunal. This obligation includes the State’s duty to report on the measures adopted to comply with such decisions of the Court. Timely fulfillment of the State’s obligation to report to the Court on the exact manner in which it is complying with each of the aspects ordered by the latter is essential to evaluate the whole status of compliance in this case.4 * * * 8. That as to the obligation to take the necessary measures to provide justice in this case, the State informed that the current criminal proceedings have a constant procedural activity and that they have shown some results as to the formally inclusion of possible perpetrators to the case. As to the specific progress of the investigations in the Human Rights Unit regarding the case of La Granja, the State informed, inter alia, that after the Judgment, the Human Rights Unit brought charges and issued an order to be held in preventive detention against a paramilitary officer; a third person was formally included in the investigation of this case and by means of court record of December 5, 2007, the 2 Cf. International Responsibility for the Promulgation and Enforcement of Laws in Violation of the Convention (Articles 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 Gómez Palomino, supra note 1, Considering clause 5; and Case of the Dismissed Congressional Employees (Aguado Alfaro et al.) v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of June 8, 2009, Considering Clause fourth. 3 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 1, para. 30; Case of Gómez Palomino, supra note 1, Considering clause six; and Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community, supra note 1; Considering clause six. 4 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 five; Case of Gómez Palomino, supra note 1, Considering clause seven; and Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of June 2, 2009, Considering Clause six.