5 case to which they are parties.” Accordingly, the States must ensure implementation at the domestic level of the judgments of the Court.3 3. 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 comply with 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.4 That the treaty obligations of the States Parties are binding for all the powers and organs of the State. 4. 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.5 * * 5. * That, in the instant case, the Court found it proved that: In addition to the lack of lands, the life of the members of the Sawhoyamaxa Community is characterized by unemployment, illiteracy, morbidity rates caused by avoidable illnesses, malnutrition, the precarious conditions of their dwelling places and environment, limited access and use of health care services and drinking water, as well as marginalization for economic, geographic and cultural reasons.6 6. That this situation of vulnerability of the members of the Sawhoyamaxa Community persisted even after the President of the Republic of Paraguay issued Decree No. 3789 on June 23, 1999, declaring a state of emergency. Furthermore, 3 Cfr. Case of Bámaca Velásquez. Compliance of Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of 4 July 2006, Third considering clause; Case of the “Five Pensioners”. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of 4 July 2006, Third considering clause, and Case of the 19 Tradesmen. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of 2 February 2006, Third considering clause. Cf. Case of Yatama. Compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 29, 2006, fifth considering paragraph; Case of Cesti Hurtado. Compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 22, 2006, seventh considering paragraph, and Case of Ricardo Canese. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 22, 2006, sixth considering paragraph. 4 5 Cf. Case of Yatama. Compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 29, 2006, sixth considering paragraph; Case of Cesti Hurtado. Compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 22, 2006, eighth considering paragraph, and Case of Ricardo Canese. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of September 22, 2006, seventh considering paragraph. 6 Cf. Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community. Judgment of March 29, 2006. Series C No. 146, para. 168.