that the absence of clear rules for the appointment, permanence and removal of judges regardless of the nature of their appointment, coupled with the effect of a transitory regime, constitutes a violation of Article 2 of the Convention.”175 138. The representatives referred to the alleged violation of the obligation to adopt domestic legal provisions as a result of the violation of the rights to judicial guarantees and to judicial protection in this case (supra paras. 113 and 125). 139. The State did not refer specifically to the alleged violation of Article 2 of the American Convention. However, when referring to the regime of provisional judges in Venezuelan case law, the State indicated that “aware of the obligation established in Article 2 of the American Convention […], and given the constitutional obligation to guarantee the continuity of the administration of justice and the right of everyone to access to justice, it had proceeded to make temporary and special appointments of non-permanent judges to fill the vacancies that occurred.” 7.2. Considerations of the Court 140. Article 2 of the Convention obliges the States Parties to adopt, in accordance with their constitutional processes and the provisions of the Convention, such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to give effect to those rights and freedoms protected by the Convention.176 In other words, the States not only have the positive obligation to adopt the legislative measures necessary to guarantee the exercise of the rights established in the Convention, but must also avoid enacting laws that prevent the free exercise of those rights, and eliminating or amending laws that protect them.177 141. In the instant case, the Court notes that the restructuring of the Venezuelan Judiciary began with the Decree on the Reorganization of the Judiciary in August 1999 (supra paras. 53 to 55), more than 12 years ago. Although the Ethics Code for Venezuelan Judges was adopted within the framework of this restructuring process, according to the information available in the case file, its implementation by the establishment of disciplinary tribunals had not occurred at the date of this judgment, even though the Constitution established that the legislation on the judicial system should be enacted within a year of the installation of the Constituent Assembly (supra para. 56). Also, several decisions of the Judicial Commission and the Supreme Court of Justice, including those in this case, have defended the criterion of the free removal of provisional and temporary judges (supra paras. 67, 68, 74, 84, 85, 87 and 88), even though this type of judge must have a minimum stability. 175 Article 2 of the Convention (Domestic Legal Effects) establishes the following: Where the exercise of any of the rights or freedoms referred to in Article 1 is not already ensured by legislative or other provisions, the States Parties undertake to adopt, in accordance with their constitutional processes and the provisions of this Convention, such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to give effect to those rights or freedoms. 176 Case of Gangaram Panday v. Suriname. Preliminary objections Judgment of December 4, 1991. Series C No. 12, para. 50, and Case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela supra nota 12, para. 130. See also: International Responsibility for the Promulgation and Enforcement of Laws in Violation of the Convention (Arts. 1 and 2 of the American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-14/94 of December 9, 1994. Series A No. 14, para. 48. 177 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 Salvador Chiriboga v. Ecuador. Preliminary objection and merits. Judgment of May 6, 2008. Series C No. 179, para. 122, and Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panama, supra note 14, para. 57. 44