2 from Article 1(1) of the Convention; to deny its comprehensive scope would be to deprive the American Convention of its effects. The general obligation of Article 1(1) embraces all the rights protected by the Convention. There is nothing to prevent the matter from being considered at the phase of reparations, inasmuch as these latter are demanded for the failure to comply with both the specific obligations pertaining to each of the protected rights, as well as the additional general obligations of respecting and ensuring respect for those rights (Article 1(1)) and of bringing domestic law into conformity with the norms of protection of the Convention to that effect. 5. It could hardly be denied that, at times, the reparation itself for proven human rights violations in concrete cases may require changes in domestic laws and administrative practices. Enforcement of human rights treaties has not only been known to resolve individual cases, it has also brought about such changes, thus transcending the particular circumstances of the concrete cases; examples of cases in which national laws were in fact modified, in accordance with the decisions of the international human rights supervisory organs in individual cases, abound in international practice.0 The efficacy of human rights treaties is measured, to a large extent, by their impact upon the domestic law of the States Parties. It cannot be legitimately expected that a human rights treaty be "adapted" to the conditions prevailing within each country, as, a contrario sensu, it ought to have the effect of improving the conditions of exercise of the rights it protects in the ambit of the domestic law of the States Parties. 6. It is indeed surprising, and regrettable, that, at the end of five decades of evolution of the International Law of Human Rights, doctrine has not yet sufficiently and satisfactorily examined and developed the extent and consequences of the interrelations between the general duties to respect and to ensure respect for the protected rights and to harmonize the domestic legal order with the international norms of protection. The few existing indications are to be found in case-law. This Court began to consider such interrelations in its seventh Advisory Opinion, of 1986, in which it warned that the fact that States Parties "may fix the conditions of exercise" of the protected rights "does not impair the enforceability, on the international plane, of the obligations they have assumed under Article 1(1)" of the Convention; and it added that that conclusion was reinforced by the wording of Article 2 of the Convention.0 7. One decade after that consideration by the Court, the time has come to retake and examine the matter more deeply. The general and fundamental duty of Article 1(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights is paralleled in other treaties on the rights of the human person, such as the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Article 2(1)), the Convention on the Rights of the Child (Articles 2(1) and 38(1)), the four Geneva 2 At regional level, cf., for examples, European Court of Human Rights, Aperçus - Trente-cinq années d'activité 1959-1994, Strasbourg, Council of Europe, 1995, pp. 70-83. - At global (United Nations) level, one may recall, e.g. that in the Aumeeruddy-Cziffra and Others case, the Human Rights Committee (under the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights), in its Views of 09 April 1981, concluded that the State Party (Mauritius) should modify provisions of its legislation on immigration and deportation (the Immigration (Amendment) Act and the Deportation (Amendment) Act, both of 1997) in order to harmonize them with its conventional obligations under the Covenant, and should provide "immediate remedies" to the victims of the substantiated human rights violations. Cf. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Human Rights Committee - Selected Decisions under the Optional Protocol, vol. I, 1985, p. 71. 3 Enforceability of the Right to Reply or Correction (Arts. 14(1), 1(1) and 2 of the American Convention on Human Rights), Advisory Opinion OC-7/86 of 29 August 1986, Series A, n. 7, paragraphs 28-29. In their lucid Separate Opinions on that Advisory Opinion, Judges R.E. Piza Escalante (loc. cit., paragraphs 25-33) and H. Gros Espiell (ibid., paragraph 6) argued that the obligation of Article 2 complements, but does not substitute or fulfil, the unconditional and fundamental obligation of Article 1(1) of the American Convention.