30 61. It is important to emphasize that: [t]he general duty of Article 2 of the American Convention implies the adoption of measures in two ways. On the one hand, derogation of rules and practices of any kind that imply the violation of guarantees in the Convention. On the other hand, the issuance of rules and the development of practices leading to an effective enforcement of said guarantees.106 62. The foregoing notwithstanding, the Court also observes that: Argentina has domestic laws that require payment of exorbitant amounts in the form of filing fees and fees for attorneys and experts, fees that far exceed the amount that would reasonably be needed to cover the court costs and expenses of the administration of justice and equitable remuneration for qualified professional services. But Argentina also has laws on the books that authorize judges to reduce the figure for filing fees and professional fees to amounts that make them reasonable and fair. The InterAmerican Court knows for a fact that Argentina’s Supreme Court has invoked the possibility of applying the provisions of international treaties in domestic court cases, which has meant that in a number of proceedings, the judges have applied the provisions of the American Convention directly, modifying, wherever necessary, the scope of the domestic laws.107 This being the case, this Court finds no reason to conclude that the State has failed to comply with Article 2 of the Convention because. taken as a whole, its legal system does not necessarily obstruct the right of access to the courts. All the same, the State should expunge from its legal system those provisions that could in any way serve as the basis for levying filing fees and figuring professional fees that, being disproportionate and excessive, obstruct full access to the courts. At the same time, it should adopt a series of measures so that the filing fee and professional fees do not become obstacles to effective observance and exercise of the rights to judicial guarantees and to judicial protection, both protected under the American Convention. * * * B) SUBSTANTIVE MATTERS 63. It is difficult to determine whether the judgment the Supreme Court of Argentina delivered on September 7, 1996, constitutes per se a violation of the Convention. This would be true only if the judgment itself were arbitrary. In general, a judgment must be the reasoned derivation of the law, based on the facts of the case. But a judgment may be a reasoned derivation of the law and still be arbitrary. An arbitrary ruling would observe all the formalities of a court ruling, but its flaws would be so serious as to vitiate it as a jurisdictional act. In the instant case, the judgment delivered by the Argentine Supreme Court is based upon the norms governing the validity and nullity of legal acts, mainly on the analysis of the 1982 agreement and on the extinction of an obligation due to the running of the statute of limitations that should apply if that agreement is invalid. In this Court’s view, the judgment delivered by the Argentine Supreme Court cannot be regarded as an arbitrary ruling. 106 107 Cf. Durand and Ugarte Case, supra note 97, par.137. Ekmedjian, Miguel Angel c/Sofovich, Gerardo y otros, Supreme Court of Argentina, Case No. E.64.XXIII, Judgment of 7 July 1992.