responsibility of the director of the Establishment, those sentenced can share single cells, a disciplinary regime that will apply until release.” 34. Given the foregoing, the Court believes that through the Executive and Legislative Branches and the Constitutional Court, measures have been taken to revoke the regulations that are contrary to the Convention, by way of their annulment, reform, or new interpretation. In this sense, some norms of a legal nature have been issued on the subject, whose content is geared towards fulfilling certain standards of the international law of human rights. In this regard, the Court considers that, in the absence of a specific and current controversy between the parties relating to the scope of the reforms ordered by the Court, in the specific context of that which was declared to be a violation of the Convention in the present case, it deems that this measure of reparation has been fulfilled, without this implying a trial on the norms or practices which it analyzes in the context of other contentious cases. 35. Notwithstanding the foregoing, this Court notes that not only the suppression or issuance of norms in domestic legislation guarantee the rights enshrined in the American Convention, pursuant to the obligation established in Article 2 of that instrument. It also requires the development of State practices that are conducive to the effective observance of the rights and freedoms enshrined in it. Consequently, the existence of a norm does not by itself guarantee that its application is appropriate. It is necessary that the application of the norms or their interpretation, in both judicial practices and manifestations of State public order, be adapted to the same purpose of Article 2 of the Convention. In other words, the Court notes that judges and other bodies linked to the administration of justice must exercise “control for conformity with the Convention” ex officio between the domestic norms and the American Convention, in the framework of their powers and the corresponding procedural regulations. In this task, they should take into account not only the international treaty in question, but also the interpretation thereof made by the Court, the ultimate interpreter of the American Convention.13 This should ensure the strictest diligence in safeguarding the principles of legality, the right to defense, the restrictions on the use of the military jurisdiction and the duty to guarantee the rights of persons deprived of liberty, in the framework of the jurisprudence of the Court and the applicable international law. E) Regarding the obligation to investigate the facts in the instant case, identify and punish those responsible for those acts, and adopt all necessary domestic legal measures to ensure that this obligation is discharged (Operative paragraph six of the Judgment) 36. The State reported on the termination of criminal actions due to the statute of limitations in the criminal prosecution stage taken against five members of the Police, for the crime against life, body, and health, serious injury, and against two members of the Police for the crime of forced-rape, both to the detriment of Mrs. Loayza Tamayo, enacted by the Third Criminal Procedures Chamber for Inmate Liberty of the Superior Court of 13 Case of Radilla Pacheco V. México. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of 23 de Noviembre de 2009. Series C No. 2009, paras. 338 and 339. 11