308. Based on the conclusions established in Chapter IX concerning Article 3 of the Convention, the Court orders the State to implement, within one year of notification of this judgment at the most, a registration and documentation program, so that the members of the Community can register and to obtain their identity documents. 5.2. Adapting domestic law to the Convention 309. Based on the Court’s conclusions in Chapter VI of this judgment, the Court finds it necessary that the State ensure the effective enjoyment of the rights recognized by the American Convention, by its Constitution and by its laws. The Court considers that the State’s international responsibility in this case has resulted from the fact that it had failed to adapt its laws in order to guarantee the indigenous communities’ right to ownership of their traditional territory, and also that institutional practices limit or fail to guarantee fully the effective application of the laws that have been established formally to guarantee the rights of the members of the indigenous communities. In the Court’s opinion, the social interest of property for the indigenous communities should signify that the circumstance that it is indigenous ancestral land should be taken into account, and should be reflected at both the substantive and the procedural levels. 310. Consequently, in accordance with Article 2 of the American Convention, within two years, the State must adopt in its domestic law the necessary legislative, administrative and any other measures to establish an effective system for indigenous peoples to claim their ancestral or traditional lands, which makes it possible to implement their right to property. This system must establish substantive norms that guarantee: (a) that the importance to the indigenous peoples of their traditional lands is taken into account, and (b) that it is not enough that the land claimed is owned privately and is being exploited rationally to reject any land claim. Furthermore, this system must establish that a judicial authority has the competence to decide the disputes that arise between the right to property of private entities and that of the indigenous peoples. 5.2. Regarding the decree declaring part of the land claimed by the members of the Community a protected wooded area 311. With regard to judicial practice, this Court has established that it is aware that domestic judges and tribunals are subject to the rule of law and, therefore, they are obliged to apply the legal provisions in force.309 However, when a State has ratified an international treaty such as the American Convention, its judges, as part of the State apparatus, are also subject to it, which obliges them to ensure that the effects of the provisions of the Convention are not weakened by the application of laws contrary to its object and purpose. In other words, the Judiciary must ex officio exercise “control that domestic laws are in accordance with the American Convention, evidently, within the framework of its respective competences and the corresponding procedural regulations. In this task, the Judiciary must take into account not only the treaty, but also the interpretation given to it by Inter-American Court, ultimate interpreter of the American Convention.310 312. In this case, Decree No. 11,804 issued on January 31, 2008, declaring part of the land claimed by the Community a protected wooded area under private ownership, 309 Cf. Case of Almonacid Arellano et al. v. Chile, supra note 39, para. 124; Case of La Cantuta v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 29, 2006. Series C No. 162, para. 173, and Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico, supra note 12, para. 339. 310 Cf. Case of Almonacid Arellano et al. v. Chile, supra note 39, para. 124; Case of La Cantuta v. Peru, supra note 308, para. 173, and Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico, supra 12, para. 339. 71