8 exercise of the protected rights and, accordingly, to prevent, investigate and punish all violations of those rights and, moreover, to seek reparation for the damages resulting from those violations.21 19. Thus established that link by the Court itself, its Judgment on the merits in the present Caballero Delgado and Santana case22 enabled it, thereby, in my view, to pronounce affirmatively on the aforementioned measures of non-pecuniary reparation requested by the Commission,23 as it should have done in the present Judgment on reparations. In my understanding, despite the assertion that there was no violation of Article 2 of the Convention, the finding of non-compliance with the general duty of Article 1(1) is per se sufficient to determine to the State Party that it ought to take measures, including of legislative character, to guarantee to all persons under its jurisdiction the full exercise of all the rights protected by the American Convention. 20. It is perfectly possible to proceed to such determination in the present context of reparation for damages, inasmuch as the normative basis of Article 63(1) of the American Convention contemplates the ruling on both the indemnizations as well as other measures of reparation resulting from the duty to guarantee the enjoyment of the rights violated. In the present domain of protection, international law and domestic law are in constant 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 Parties24 to protect individual rights, and on the 21 Velásquez Rodríguez Case, loc. cit. supra n. (1), paragraph 166; Godínez Cruz Case, loc. cit. supra n. (1), paragraph 175. 22 Paragraphs 59, 58 and 69, and operative paragraph n. 1. 23 And by the petitioners in the case on behalf of the victims. 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