218. The State held that “the new Organic Code of the Judiciary, in effect since 2009, established procedures for removing and sanctioning judges of the National Court of Justice.” Therefore, these new regulations should be considered as a measure of nonrepetition and a sign of the progress achieved since the 2008 Constitution. Despite the foregoing, the State indicated that the Commission did not take this into account and submitted the case to the Court. The State emphasized that “[a] simple reading of the Organic Code shows the inclusion of principles regarding tenure in office for members of the judiciary, the establishment of processes for the selection, appointment, tenure and removal from office of members of the judiciary and the incorporation of rights to which such persons are entitled.” The State also pointed out that the process of judicial reform has not concluded, and therefore it cannot be judged a priori. The State added that “the guarantee of non-repetition is fully complied with since domestic law is adapted to international standards and provides appropriate legal mechanisms.” Considerations of the Court 219. From the arguments presented by the Commission and the representatives, the Court notes that there were disputes over the provisions currently in force in Ecuador concerning the selection, appointment and tenure of judges in the Judicial Branch and the influence that this might have on judicial independence. In this regard, Article 90 of the Organic Code of the Judiciary, in force since March 9, 2009, contemplates the right of judicial officials to “tenure in their positions or public office”, and stipulates that they “shall not be removed, suspended or dismissed in the exercise of their duties, but only according to law.” 248 With regard to advances on the question of entry into public office, the State cited Articles 52 to 66 of the Organic Code of the Judiciary regarding the process for the selection of officials. 220. Regarding the removal of officials, the Organic Code of the Judiciary contains articles referring to prohibitions and minor, serious and very serious infractions. Likewise, the Court notes that disciplinary action may be taken officially or in response to a complaint or accusation, and that a complaint may be filed by “[t]he President of the Republic, the President of the National Assembly; the President of the Council for Citizen Participation and Social Control; the Comptroller General of the State; the Attorney General of the State; the President of the Judiciary Council and its members; senior authorities of the autonomous bodies; judges and assistant judges of the National Court of Justice; and judges of the provincial courts, criminal courts and courts of first instance; the Commander General and department chiefs of the National Police; and the Internal Auditor.” 249 221. In this respect, the Court recalls that Article 2 of the Convention requires the States Party to adopt, in accordance with constitutional procedures and the provisions of the Convention, the legislative or other measures necessary to make effective the rights and freedoms protected by the Convention. 250 In other words, the States not only have a positive obligation to adopt the legislative measures necessary to guarantee the exercise of the rights enshrined therein, but must also avoid enacting laws that preclude the free 248 Cf. Article 90 of the Organic Code of the Judiciary. Official Record Supplement 544 of March 9, 2009 (File of attachments to the answer brief, volume I, page 3585). 249 Cf. Article 113 of the Organic Code of the Judiciary. Official Record Supplement 544 of March 9, 2009 (File of attachments to the Answer brief, volume I, page 3590). 250 Cf. Case of Garrido and Baigorria v. Argentina. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 27, 1998. Series C No. 39, para. 68, and Case Mendoza et al. v. Argentina, para. 323. 63