29 case, one finds that both the State and the plaintiff engaged in behaviors that, either by action or omission, served to prolong the proceedings in the domestic courts. If the plaintiff’s own conduct somehow helped to prolong the proceedings, then it is hard to make the case that it is the State that has violated the “reasonable time” clause.102 In all events, considering, inter alia, the complexity of the case and the plaintiff’s failure to take action to move the case forward, the overall duration of the litigious proceedings would not be significant enough for a finding that the articles that protect access to the courts and judicial guarantees have been violated. This Court therefore finds that it does not have the elements it would need to find that the Argentine State has violated, in the instant case, Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention as regards a person’s rights to obtain a response, within a reasonable time, to claims and petitions presented to the judicial authorities. 58. The Court considers that even though the Inter-American Commission did not expressly allege in Mr. Cantos’ case a failure to apply Article 2 of the American Convention with regard to the enforcement of laws No. 23,898 on filing fees, and No. 24,432 and No. 21,839, on professional fees, the Court is not precluded from examining this matter by virtue of a general principle of law, iura novit curia, “on which international jurisprudence has repeatedly relied and under which a court has the power and the duty to apply the juridical provisions relevant to a proceeding, even when the parties do not expressly invoke them.”103 59. 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.104 In earlier judgments the Court has held that this provision imposes upon the States parties the general obligation to bring their domestic laws into compliance with the norms of the Convention in order to guarantee the rights set out therein. The provisions of domestic law that are adopted must be effective (principle of effet utile). That is to say, the State has the obligation to adopt and to integrate into its domestic legal system such measures as are necessary to allow the provisions of the Convention to be effectively complied with and put into actual practice.105 60. The Court observes that in the case sub judice, application of the filing fee and the professional fees strictly according to the letter of the law meant that exorbitant amounts were charged, with the effect of obstructing Mr. Cantos’ access to the court, as indicated elsewhere in this Judgment (supra 54, 55 and 56). The judicial authorities should have taken appropriate steps to prevent this situation from materializing and to ensure effective access to the court and effective observance and exercise of the right to judicial guarantees and judicial protection. 102 Cour Eur. D.H., Affaire Guichon c. France, Arrêt du 21 mars 2000, par. 24, and European Court of Human Rights, Stoidis v. Greece, Judgment of 17 May 2001, par. 19; and European Court of Human Rights, Case of Glaser v. the United Kingdom, Judgment of 19 September 2000, paragraphs 96 and 97. 103 Godínez Cruz Case, Judgment of January 20, 1989. Series C No. 5, par. 172. Cf. Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. Case, supra note 5, par. 107; Durand and Ugarte Case, supra note 97, par. 76, and Castillo Petruzzi et al.Case. Judgment of May 30, 1999. Series C No. 52, par. 166. 104 Cf. “The Last Temptation of Christ” Case (Olmedo Bustos et al.). Judgment of February 5, 2001. Series C No. 73, par. 87. Ekmedjian, Miguel Angel c/Sofovich, Gerardo y otros, Supreme Court of Argentina, Case No. E.64.XXIII, Judgment of 7 July 1992. 105 Cf. Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. Case, supra note 5, par. 112; and “The Last Temptation of Christ” Case, (Olmedo Bustos et al.), supra note 104, par. 87.