given that eight years passed since the body charged with constitutional control deemed the executive decrees to be unconstitutional, since the proceeding observed by the Executive Branch to separate the plaintiff from the ranks of the Army was in violation of due process.” “If the [State] considers that due to constitutional provisions the action does not have retroactive effect, then it is its obligation to carry out a constitutional reform to protect the rights recognized in the judgment of the tribunal. Nevertheless, far from this, the government limited itself to stating that there is nothing to fulfill and that its decrees are in force.” “In so doing, the State has abandoned the alleged victim without having carried out any actions to establish legal or administrative mechanisms that would allow for the domestic laws to be adapted so that the remedies are effective,” which has violated Article 2 of the Convention. It should be noted that later, the representatives did not take a position on the alleged violation of Article 2 of the American Convention, neither at the public hearing nor in their final arguments. 114. On its behalf, the State rejected the argument regarding the violation of Article 2 of the Convention, and it noted that to argue a violation of this provision is rushed, incoherent, and not very cautious in both the resolution of the Constitutional Tribunal and the judgment of the Constitutional Tribunal, which are still unfolding the effects of its legal compliance. It added that this provision recognizes not only the obligation to adopt norms, but also, in general, measures of all character— institutional or economic—to ensure effective compliance of the Convention. In this regard, it noted that “the State is in the process of adopting legislative measures to harmonize with the constitution in the National Assembly and in producing legal research by the teams of the Subsecretariat of Normative Development of the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights.” Therefore, the process of regulatory harmonization with the Constitution should be taken into account, as well as that the international human rights instruments are incorporated in all procedural and substantive reforms. Considerations of the Court 115. The Court notes that the representatives limited themselves exclusively in their brief of pleadings and motions upon formulating arguments without offering relevant evidence to support the existence of an alleged violation of Article 2 of the 93 Convention. Moreover, in their final brief, the representatives did not address the matter. Given the foregoing, the Court dismisses said argument for lack of evidence. In addition, the Court already substantively ruled on the failure to execute the judgment in the corresponding section (supra VI. C. b)). 2) Regarding the alleged violation of Article 24 of the American Convention. Arguments of the parties 93 The general duty of the State to adapt its domestic law to the provisions of the Convention to guarantee the rights enshrined thereof, provided for in Article 2, which involves action on two fronts. On the one hand, elimination of rules and practices of any kind involving violations of the guarantees under the Convention. On the other hand, the issuance of rules and the development of practices leading to effective enforcement of those guarantees. Cf. Case of Castillo Petruzzi et to V. Peru, supra note 71, para. 207, and Case of Reverón Trujillo V. Venezuela. Preliminar Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 30, 2009. Series C No. 197, para. 60. 36