22 Convention the adaptation of its laws; however, this entails a progressive process, reason by which the Commission cannot conclude that the application of the extinct [CCP] violated the Convention, inasmuch as this code was in line with the Constitution of the Republic of Venezuela of 1961, in force at the time of the events of the instant case." 106. The Court has stipulated, on several occasions, regarding the general obligation of every State Party to adapt its domestic laws to the provisions of that Convention, that “[u]nder the law of nations, a customary law prescribes that a State that has concluded an international agreement must introduce into its domestic laws whatever changes are needed to ensure execution of the obligations it has undertaken.”53 This principle is embodied in Article 2 of the Convention, which establishes the general obligation of every State Party to adapt its domestic legislation to the provisions of the Convention itself, to guarantee the rights enshrined therein, which implies the need to adopt effective measures within their own domestic laws compatible with its provisions and its effects (effet utile).54 107. This principle requires the adoption of two types of measure, namely: i) the repeal of laws and practices of any kind that entail a violation of the guarantees established in the Convention, or that disregard the rights recognized therein or impede their exercise, and (ii) the enactment of laws and the development of practices conducive to respect for those guarantees.55 108. It is reasonable to understand that the adjustment of domestic laws to conform to the American Convention under the terms established in the preceding paragraphs may take some time for the State. However, such time must be reasonable. Hence, in the case of Heliodoro Portugal V. Panamá this Court noted that the even though the defendant State assumed in 1996 the obligation to define the offense of forced disappearance in 1996, it did so in 2007. The Inter-American Court deemed that “more than 10 years elapsed […] this exceeds the reasonable time in which to do so.”56 109. Venezuela ratified the American Convention in 1977 and the facts of the instant case occurred in 1993. The State had 16 years to adapt its domestic legislation to conform to the Convention, which the State did not do. Consequently, the Court rejects the argument of the State (supra para. 104). VI 53 Cf. Case of Garrido and Baigorria V. Argentina. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 27, 1998. Series C No. 39, para. 68; Case of Zambrano Vélez et al. V. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C Nº. 16, para. 55; and Case of Heliodoro Portugal V. Panamá, supra note 23, para. 179. 54 Cf. Case of “The last temptation of Christ” (Olmedo- Bustos et al.) V. Chile. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 5, 2001. Series C No. 73, para. 87; Case of Ivcher Bronstein V Peru. Competence. Judgment of September 24, 1999. Series C No. 54, para. 37; and Case of Heliodoro Portugal V. Panamá, supra note 23, para. 179. 55 Cf. Case of Almonacid Arellano et al. V. Chile. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 154, para. 118; and Case of Heliodoro Portugal V. Panamá, supra note 23, para. 180. 56 Cf. Case of Heliodoro Portugal V. Panamá, supra note 23, para. 187.