66 and the implementation of practices leading to the effective observance of the said guarantees. […] In international law, customary law establishes that a State which has ratified a human rights treaty must introduce the necessary modifications to its domestic law to ensure the proper compliance with the obligations it has assumed. This law is universally accepted, and is supported by jurisprudence. The American Convention establishes the general obligation of each State Party to adapt its domestic law to the provisions of this Convention, in order to guarantee the rights that it embodies. This general obligation of the State Party implies that the measures of domestic law must be effective (the principle of effet utile). This means that the State must adopt all measures so that the provisions of the Convention are effectively fulfilled in its domestic legal system, as Article 2 of the Convention requires. Such measures are only effective when the State adjusts its actions to the Convention’s rules on protection. 154 214) In light of this, the Court finds that the State should order a retrial for the criminal charges brought against the victims of the present Case and apply the aforementioned legislative reforms in the new trial 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, Nigel Mark, Wilberforce Bernard, Steve Mungroo, Peter Benjamin, Krishendath Seepersad, Allan Phillip, Narine Sooklal, Amir Mowlah, Mervyn Parris, and Francis Mansingh. In addition, the Advisory Committee on the Power of Pardon must resubmit the victims’ cases to the executive authority competent to render a decision regarding that mercy procedure. This should be carried out in accordance with the restrictions contained in the American Convention concerning the right to life and in strict compliance with the norms of due process stipulated therein. 155 215) For the purposes of reparations, the Court must take into account the fact that the State, to the detriment of all or some of the victims in this case, has violated the rights embodied in Articles 4(1), 4(2) and 4(6), 5(1) and 5(2), 7(5), 8(1) and 25, in relation with Articles 1(1) and 2 of the Convention, due to the totality of circumstances described in this judgment, including the fact that the victims have been sentenced under a law that is incompatible with the American Convention. The Court, in the exercise of the authority conferred upon it by Article 63(1) of the Convention, holds, on the grounds of equity, that the State, regardless of the outcome of the new trials mentioned in the last paragraph, and independently of whether the new trials are actually carried out, should refrain from executing 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, Nigel Mark, Wilberforce Bernard, Steve Mungroo, Peter Benjamin, Krishendath Seepersad, Allan Phillip, Narine Sooklal, Amir Mowlah, Mervyn Parris and Francis Mansingh. 154 Cf. I/A Court H.R., "The Last Temptation of Christ" Case (Olmedo Bustos et al.), supra note 114, paras. 85 and 87. 155 Cf. also the jurisprudence of the Privy Council in Neville Lewis v. Jamaica, supra note 142.