are expressly excepted.” They requested that Law 25,344 be amended so that “the courts may determine the special situations and cases that should be excluded from consolidation by the judges when delivering judgment,” and for the establishment of “some type of system that gives preference to payment in cases where a situation that affects the right to health care and/or social security is confirmed.” 298. Regarding the representatives’ request that the Court order amendments to the code of civil procedure, the State considered this “totally vague, wide-ranging and incoherent,” and indicated that “the Code of Civil and Commercial Procedure of the Nation […] was reformed in 2001, in line with the relevant international standards and with the vague claims submitted by the alleged victims.” It indicated that Articles 34 and 36 of the Code of Civil and Commercial Procedure of the Nation establish that “judges act in their personal capacity in the proceedings and may request multidisciplinary assessment through the introduction of experts.” 299. With respect to the request for legislative reforms concerning the system for the execution of judgments, the State argued that “legislation on economic policy is outside the [Court’s] sphere of competence,” owing to the reservation made by the State with regard to Article 21 of the Convention. It also indicated that “the system for the execution of judgments established in Law 23,928 was amended by Law 25,344, which, in Article 18, establishes that the National Executive may order the exclusion from the system of consolidation of vouchers “under exceptional circumstances related to situations of abandonment and indigence.” Considerations of the Court 300. The Court recalls that Article 2 of the Convention requires States Parties to adopt, based on their constitutional processes and the provisions of the Convention, such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to give effect to the rights or freedoms protected by the Convention.460 In other words, States not only have the positive obligation to adopt the necessary legislative measures to guarantee the exercise of the rights embodied in the Convention, but they must also avoid promulgating laws that prevent the free exercise of those rights, and eliminate or amend laws that protect them.461 Therefore, the Court recalls that, in the context of the obligations stemming from Articles 1(1) and 2 of the Convention, and according to the standards described in this Judgment (supra paras. 125 to 139), the States must take steps to reduce structural barriers or limitations and to give the appropriate preferential treatment to persons with disabilities, in order to achieve the objective of their full participation and equality within society. 301. In this case, the Court merely examined the duration of the judicial proceedings and the obstacles to access to health care, rehabilitation and social security services. The Court did not analyze the compatibility of a specific provision with the American Convention, which was not an element of this case. Moreover, the representatives did not provide sufficient evidence to allow the Court to infer that the violations declared in this case stem from a problem in the laws themselves. Other proposed reforms relate to fundamental matters that are intrinsic to the regulation of the Argentine civil procedure. The representatives did not provide further information that would allow the Court to conclude that the regulation of the Argentine civil procedure, as established by the law, contains normative flaws in relation to 460 Cf. Case of Gangaram Panday v. Suriname. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of December 4, 1991. Series C No. 12, para. 50 and Case of the Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador, para. 221. 461 Cf. Case of Gangaram Panday. Preliminary Objections, para. 50 and Case of the Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador, para. 221. 94