35 their fundamental rights or involving the determination of their rights and obligations.118 In turn, the general duty of the State to adapt its domestic law to the provisions of the Convention in order to guarantee the rights therein, pursuant to Article 2, includes passing rules and developing practices to observe the rights and liberties included therein in an effective manner, as well as adopting measures to eliminate any rules and practices of any nature whatsoever involving a violation of the guarantees set forth in the Convention.119 131. In the present case, the Tribunal has pointed out that the State did not guarantee Mr. Usón Ramírez his right to be tried by competent, independent, and impartial tribunals(supra para. 116 and 119). The victim filed for remedies before military120 and the ordinary121 courts. In particular, the Court notes the filing of an appeals remedy before the ordinary jurisdiction, specifically with the Criminal Appellate Division of the Supreme Tribunal of Justice, wherein he refered, inter alia, to the military jurisdiction’s lack of competence. 122 That action was "rejected as manifestly unfounded".123 Subsequently, an appeal for review was brought before the Supreme Tribunal of Justice of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.124 The filing of these remedies implies that Mr. Usón tried to have “effective remedies before judges or courts with competence, which protects him from acts violating his fundamental rights,” as stated in Article 25 of the Convention. In the end, Mr. Usón Ramírez did not count on a remedy that guaranteed he was judged by a competent and imparcial tribunal. 132. As such, the State violated Article 25(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) of the Convention, to the detriment of Mr. Usón Ramírez. VIII 118 Cf. Case of Suárez Rosero v. Ecuador. Merits. Judgment of November 12, 1997. Series C No. 35, para. 65; Case of Acevedo Buendía et al. (“Discharged and Retired Employees of the Office of the Comptroller), supra note 9, para. 72, and Case of Claude Reyes et al., supra note 44, para. 130. 119 Cf. Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al., supra note 46, para. 207; Case of Reverón Trujillo, supra note 12, para. 60, and Case of Castañeda Gutman, supra note 56, para. 79. 120 Cf. Transcript of hearings of the Second Military Court of First Instance of Caracas on May 24, 2004, supra note 95, fs. 1247 to 1252; order of May 27, 2004 of the Second Military Court of First Instance of Caracas, supra note 95, fs. 1352 a 1361; transcript of hearing of Second Military Court of First Instance of Caracas of June 22, 2004 (case file of attachments to the petition, tomo II, attachment 56, fs. 1329 a 1331); decision of the Martial Court on June 15, 2004 (case file of attachments to the petition, tomo II, attachment 61, fs. 1368 a 1391); order of the Second Military Court of First Instance of Caracas on June 23, 2004 (case file of attachments to the petition, tomo II, attachment 60, fs. 1363 a 1366), and decision of the Martial Court of the Military Criminal Circuit on January 27, 2005, supra note 22, fs. 1849 to 1905. 121 Cf. Judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals of the Supreme Tribunal of Justice on June 2, 2005, supra note 22, fs. 1494 to 1557 and motion for special review presented on September 17, 2006 before the Constitutional Court of the Supreme Tribunal of Justice of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, supra note 22, fs. 2151 a 2214. 122 Cf. Judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals of the Supreme Tribunal of Justice on June 2, 2005, supra note 22, fs. 1499 a 1500. 123 Cf. Judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals of the Supreme Tribunal of Justice on June 2, 2005, supra note 22, f. 1555. 124 Cf. Judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals of the Supreme Tribunal of Justice on June 2, 2005, supra note 22, fs. 1494 to 1557.