8 interaction; national measures of implementation, particularly those of legislative character, assume capital importance for the future of the international protection of human rights itself. 21. Hence, just as the value of concrete initiatives in this sense is acknowledged, one cannot consent to the reduction to a little more than dead letter of the provisions of human rights treaties concerning the conditions of exercise of the protected rights, by the omission or inaction at domestic law level. The whole future evolution of this matter, under the American Convention on Human Rights, depends ultimately today, to a large extent, on a clear understanding of the extent of the legislative obligations of the States Parties0 to 24 Cf. my Dissenting Opinion in the El Amparo Case, Reparations (Art. 63(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights) Judgment of 14 September 1996, Series C, n. 28). The existence of such obligations under the Convention has been maintained by both the Inter-American Court and the Inter-American Commission. The Court has pointed out that a State Party may violate the Convention both by "failing to establish the norms required by Article 2" and by "adopt[ing] provisions which do not conform to its obligations under the Convention" (Certain Attributions of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (Arts. 41, 42, 44, 46, 47, 50 and 51 of the American Convention on Human Rights), Advisory Opinion OC-13/93, of 16 July 1993, Series A, n. 13, paragraph 26). Ant the Commission has likewise observed that if a law is incompatible with the Convention, the State Party "is obligated, under Article 2, to adopt such legislative measures as may be necessary to give effect to the rights and freedoms guaranteed in the Convention" (IACHR, Report n. 22/94, of 20 September 1994, case 11.012 (Argentina), friendly settlement, in Annual Report of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights - 1994, paragraph 22, page 45). - If it were necessary to seek for support for the affirmation of the existence of legislative obligations in previous international case-law, we would anyway find it therein, as from the locus classicus on the matter, in the Judgment in the case concerning Certain German Interests in Polish Upper Silesia (Germany versus Poland, 1926), and in the Advisory Opinion of 1923 on German Settlers in Poland, both rendered by the former Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ). In the exercise of both its contentious and advisory jurisdiction, the PCIJ pronounced clearly on the matter: in the aforementioned Judgment, it stated that national laws were "acts that express the will