61 committed certain crimes may be, the State does not have a license to exercise unbridled power or to use any means to achieve its ends, without regard for law or morals. The primacy of human rights is widely recognized. It is a primacy that the State can neither ignore nor abridge. 205. As the Court has stated, the States Parties to the Convention have a commitment not to adopt measures that violate the rights and freedoms recognized in the Convention.110 The Court has established that a law can violate per se Article 2 of the Convention, whether or not it was enforced in the instant case.111 206. The Court maintains that by subjecting the victims in the instant case to proceedings that violated various provisions of the American Convention, the State failed to comply with the duty to “respect the rights and freedoms recognized [t]herein and to ensure […] the free and full exercise of those rights and freedoms,” pursuant to Article 1(1) of the Convention. 207. Furthermore, the Court finds that the provisions of the emergency laws adopted by the State to deal with terrorism, in particular Decree-Laws Nos. 25,475 and 25,659 enforced in the case of the victims in the instant case, violate Article 2 of the Convention because the State has not taken proper domestic legal measures to ensure the free and full exercise of the rights recognized therein, and the Court so states. The general duty under Article 2 of the American Convention implies the adoption of measures of two kinds: on the one hand, elimination of any norms and practices that in any way violate the guarantees provided under the Convention; on the other hand, the promulgation of norms and the development of practices conducive to effective observance of those guarantees. Obviously, the State did not comply with its obligations under Article 2 of the Convention in the case of the laws invoked to prosecute the defendants. 208. The Court therefore finds that the State violated articles 1(1) and 2 of the Convention. XV ON ARTICLE 51(2) 209. Article 51(2) of the Convention provides that: [...] 2. Where appropriate, the Commission shall make pertinent recommendations and shall prescribe a period within which the state is to take the measures that are incumbent upon it to remedy the situation examined. 210. The Commission requested that the Court find that the State violated Article 51(2) of the Convention by failing to comply with the recommendations that appeared in report 17/97, adopted under Article 50 of the Convention. 211. The State did not address this point in its answer to the application. 110. International responsibility for the promulgation and enforcement of laws in violation of the Convention (Arts. 1 and 2 American Convention on Human Rights), Advisory Opinion OC-14/94 of December 16, 1994. Series A No. 14, para. 36, Suárez Rosero Case, supra note 80, para. 97. 111. Suárez Rosero Case, supra note 80, para. 98.