Criminal Enforcement Judge stated that he “was not advised by the prison authorities that the inmate’s illness had deteriorated.” Therefore, the actions of the enforcement judge failed to comply with the State’s obligations to ensure adequate access to justice in order to effectively protect Mrs. Chinchilla’s rights to personal integrity and life, by not having secured the best solution possible for her health condition in the context of the proceedings, regardless of the outcome of his decisions therein. 253. In relation to the foregoing, the State argued that, to avoid the alleged situations of lack of medications or adequate medical treatment or to denounce the effects on her health, Mrs. Chinchilla could have filed an action of amparo or habeas corpus, but did not do so. It added that, “the failure to make proper use of available domestic remedies on the part of the alleged victim and her next of kin while she was alive is noteworthy.” The Court considers that in this merits stage it is not pertinent to consider arguments regarding the supposed failure to exhaust domestic remedies, nor is it pertinent to evaluate, in abstracto, the domestic judicial remedies that were not attempted by the alleged victim or her next of kin in this case. Furthermore, given the particular relationship of subjection and control between the State and persons deprived of liberty, it is for the prison authorities themselves to guarantee those persons adequate access to and supply of the medications and diet prescribed by the doctors. Therefore, it is not appropriate that they should constantly have to resort to judicial proceedings to seek protection of their rights, owing to the failings or problems of the prison administration. In this case such situations were indeed known to a judicial authority, namely, the enforcement court, as was analyzed. 254. Finally, the Commission pointed out that there was no formal remedy to which Mrs. Chinchilla had access to denounce the harm caused to her health as a consequence of the lack of adequate treatment or the lack of conditions compatible with her dignity; therefore, the only remedy available was the incidental motion for remission of sentences. Thus, the Commission considered that the violation of Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention occurred “in connection with Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention.” Pursuant to Article 2 of the Convention, the States Parties are under the obligation to adapt their domestic laws to the provisions of the Convention, in order to guarantee the rights enshrined therein. 348 Certainly, Article 2 of the Convention fails to define which measures are appropriate to adjust domestic legislation to it; obviously, this is so because it depends on the nature of the rule requiring adjustment and the circumstances of each specific case.349 Therefore, the Court has interpreted that such adjustment implies adopting two sets of measures, namely: i) repealing rules and practices of any nature involving violations of the guarantees provided for in the Convention or disregarding the rights enshrined therein or impeding the exercise of such rights, and (ii) adopting rules and developing practices aimed at effectively ensuring the observance of said guarantees.350 However, the Commission did not specify which types of rules were not adopted, or which practices were not developed, which resulted in the State’s failure to comply with such obligations. Therefore, the Court considers that it does not have sufficient elements to analyze the alleged failure to comply with the obligation to adapt domestic law to the Cf. Case of Bulacio v. Argentina. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 18, 2003. Series C No. 100, para. 142, and Case of Omar Humberto Maldonado Vargas et al. v. Chile. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 2, 2015. Series C No. 300, para. 124. 348 Cf. Case of La Cantuta v. Peru, Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 29, 2006. Series C No. 162, para. 172, and Case of Zambrano Vélez et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 166, para. 57. 349 Cf. Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 30, 1999. Series C No. 52, para. 207; Case of Almonacid Arrellano et al. v. Chile, supra, para. 118; Case of Zambrano Vélez et al. v. Ecuador, supra, para. 57, and Case of Omar Humberto Maldonado Vargas et al. v. Chile. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 2, 2015. Series C No. 300, para. 124. 350 81