45 113) If the States, pursuant to Article 2 of the American Convention, have a positive obligation to adopt the legislative measures necessary to guarantee the exercise of the rights recognised in the Convention, it follows, then, that they also must refrain both from promulgating laws that disregard or impede the free exercise of these rights, and from suppressing or modifying the existing laws protecting them. These acts would likewise constitute a violation of Article 2 of the Convention. 114) In this sense, in the Suárez Rosero Case, this Court has held a legislative act of a State to be per se in violation of Article 2 of the American Convention (the law in question left persons charged under the Law on Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances without any legal protections of their right to personal liberty). In this respect, the Court stated that […] this [provision] deprives a part of the prison population of a fundamental right, on the basis of the crime of which it is accused and, hence, intrinsically injures everyone in that category. This rule has been applied in the specific case of Mr. Suárez Rosero and has caused him undue harm. The Court further observes that, in its opinion, this law violates per se Article 2 of the American Convention, whether or not it was enforced in the […] case. 115 115) In the Barrios Altos Case, the Court likewise established that due to the adoption of laws incompatible with the Convention, the State failed to comply with the obligation to conform its domestic law to Article 2 of the Convention. 116 116) The Court considers that even though thirty-one of the alleged victims in this case have not yet been executed, it is appropriate to find that there has been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention, by virtue of the fact that the mere existence of the Offences Against the Person Act in itself constitutes a per se violation of that provision of the Convention. 117 This assertion is consistent with Advisory Opinion OC-14/94, which states that, "[i]n the case of self-executing laws, […] the violation of human rights, whether individual or collective, occurs upon their promulgation." 118 117) From the preceding, it can be inferred that, by virtue of the fact that Trinidad and Tobago has not brought its laws into compliance with the Convention, it has not fulfilled the obligation imposed on States Parties by Article 2. 118) Therefore, the Court concludes that the State of Trinidad and Tobago failed to fulfil the obligation established in Article 2 of the American Convention, to the detriment of Haniff Hilaire, George Constantine, Wenceslaus James, Denny Baptiste, Clarence Charles, Keiron Thomas, Anthony Garcia, Wilson Prince, Darrin Roger Thomas, Mervyn Edmund, Samuel Winchester, Martin Reid, Rodney Davis, Gangadeen Tahaloo, Noel Seepersad, Wayne Matthews, Alfred Frederick, Natasha De Leon, Vijay Mungroo, Phillip Chotalal, Naresh Boodram, Joey Ramiah, Nigel Mark, 115 I/A Court H.R., Suárez Rosero Case, supra note 66, para. 98. 116 I/A Court H.R., Barrios Altos Case. Judgment of March 14, 2001. Series C No. 75, para. 42. 117 Cf. I/A Court H.R., Suárez Rosero Case, supra note 66, para. 98. 118 I/A Court H.R., International Responsibility for the Promulgation and Enforcement of Laws in Violation of the Convention (Arts. 1 and 2 American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC14/94 of December 9, 1994. Series A No. 14, para. 43.