or (iii) to support the classification of the facts prosecuted as crimes against humanity 218 in order to denote their magnitude as "inhumane acts that, due to their scope and seriousness, extend beyond the limits of what is tolerable for the international community, which must […] demand their punishment,” 219 as the Argentine Supreme Court affirmed in a subsequent ruling. 220 195. Therefore, in the matter under analysis, it was the State that provided a solution to the situation that violated human rights, recognizing that the law was contrary to the Convention, nullifying its effects, and providing redress—legally speaking and within the scope of the specific case—for its harmful consequences. 221 In short, it was an exercise that, through the proper application of a jurisprudential dialogue, strengthened the domestic guarantee of human rights. In this regard, the complementary nature of the function exercised by this Court prevents it from declaring the autonomous violation alleged. B.2. Codification of forced disappearance of persons as a criminal offense in the Argentine legal system and failure to apply it to the specific case 196. The Court has indicated that Article 2 of the American Convention establishes the general obligation of every State Party to adapt its domestic law to the provisions of the Convention in order to guarantee the rights recognized therein, which means that measures of domestic law must be effective (the effet utile principle). 222 Thus, codification of the forced disappearance of persons as an autonomous criminal offense and adoption of an explicit definition of the relevant punishable conduct are essential for the effective eradication of this practice, 223 supported under Article III of the ICFDP. 224 197. The Court recalls that the Argentine State deposited the instrument of ratification of the ICFDP on February 28, 1996. With the entry into force for the State of this international instrument, it has a specific obligation to codify the criminal offense of forced disappearance of persons, which it did with the enactment, on May 5, 2011, of Law 26,679, whereby article 142(3) was added to the National Criminal Code, Law 11,179, para. 79). 198. It is worth recalling here that these cases did not seek prosecution of the acts as an autonomous criminal offense. In only one of the rulings did the judges perform an analysis of the facts as constituting forced disappearance according to international standards, to issued by Court IV of the Federal Chamber of Criminal Cassation on May 4, 2018, case No. 13445/1999 (evidence file, volume IV, annex 17 to the answering brief, folio 14171). 218 Cf. Judgment issued by Federal Oral Criminal Court No. 1 on November 3, 2017, cases 2261 and 2390 (evidence file, volume IV, annex 13 to the answering brief, folios 9737), and Judgment issued by Court IV of the Federal Chamber of Criminal Cassation on February 27, 2019, case No. 2637/2004 (evidence file, volume IV, annex 17 to the answering brief, folio 14453). 219 Cf. Judgment issued by Federal Oral Criminal Court No. 1 on March 3, 2021, case No. 3002 (evidence file, volume X, annexes on supervening facts, folios 16814 and 16815). 220 Cf. Judgment issued by the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation on July 13, 2007, M. 2333. XLII. et al., case of “Mazzeo, Julio Lilo et al. regarding of cassation and unconstitutionality appeal,” explicitly citing the case of Almonacid Arellano. See, Case of Almonacid Arellano et al. Chile, supra, par. 105. 221 Cf. Mutatis mutandis, Case of the Peasant Community of Santa Bárbara v. Peru, supra, par. 250, and Case of Tenorio Roca et al. v. Peru, supra, pars. 217 and 218. 222 Cf. Case of "The Last Temptation of Christ ” (Olmedo Bustos et al.) v. Chile. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment dated February 5, 2001. Series C No. 73, par. 87; Case of Alvarado Espinoza et al. v. Mexico, supra, par. 258; and Case of the Miskito Divers (Lemoth Morris et al.) v. Honduras, supra, par. 45. 223 Cf. Case of Gómez Palomino v. Peru, supra, par. 92; Case of Alvarado Espinoza et al. v. Mexico, supra, par. 258, and Case of Garzón Guzmán et al. v. Ecuador, supra, par. 79. See Human Rights Council, Report of the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, General comment on forced disappearance as a continuing offense, January 26, 2011, UN Doc. A/HRC/16/48, par. 11. 224 Article III of the ICFDP: “The States Parties undertake to adopt, in accordance with their constitutional procedures, the legislative measures that may be needed to define the forced disappearance of persons as an offense and to impose an appropriate punishment commensurate with its extreme gravity. [...].” 52