98 Arguments of the State 217. Regarding the violation of Article 2 of the American Convention, the State argued that: a) the Peruvian State “is in the midst of a transition process, which includes adapting its domestic legislation to the international standards established in the Convention and in the Court’s case law; this process must be carried out over a reasonable period of time in order to continue with the regular procedures of a democratic State”; b) Compliance with the obligation to adapt domestic law to the Convention, cannot be “instantaneous,” but involves complying “in accordance with constitutional procedures”; and c) The State’s conduct after November 2000 corresponds “to a genuine intention to comply fully with its international human rights obligations.” Considerations of the Court 218. Article 2 of the Convention provides that: Where the exercise of any of the rights or freedoms referred to in Article 1 is not already ensured by legislative or other provisions, the States Parties undertake to adopt, in accordance with their constitutional processes and the provisions of this Convention, such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to give effect to those rights or freedoms. 219. The Court affirms, as it has on other occasions, that the general obligation, established in Article 2 of the American Convention entails the adoption of two types of measure: On the one hand, derogation of rules and practices of any kind that imply the violation of guarantees in the Convention. On the other hand, the issuance of rules and the development of practices leading to effective enforcement of the said guarantees.268 220. In international public law, a universally accepted customary law establishes that a State, which has ratified a human rights treaty, must introduce the necessary modifications into its domestic law to ensure proper compliance with the obligations it has assumed.269 The American Convention establishes the general obligation of each State Party to adapt its domestic law to the provisions of the Convention, in order to guarantee the rights it embodies.270 This general obligation of the State Party implies that the measures of domestic law must be effective (the principle of effet utile).271 This means that the State must adopt all measures to ensure that the 268 Cf. Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute”, supra note 3, para. 206; Case of the “Five Pensioners”. Judgment of February 28, 2003. Series C No. 98, para. 165; and Case of Baena Ricardo et al., supra note 216, para. 180. 269 Cf. Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute”, supra note 3, para. 205; Case of Bulacio, supra note 217, para. 140; and Case of the “Five Pensioners”, supra note 268, para. 164. 270 Cf. Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute”, supra note 3, para. 205; Case of Bulacio, supra note 217, para. 142; and Case of the “Five Pensioners”, supra note 268, para. 164. 271 Cf. Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute”, supra note 3, para. 205; Case of Bulacio, supra note 217, para. 142; and Case of the “Five Pensioners”, supra note 268, para. 164.