33 caused an uncertainty of fact and of law that has resulted in excessive charges imposed on the victim, turning such condemnation in an arbitrary procedure. 118. Therefore, this Tribunal considers the State is responsible of the violation of the right enshrined in Article 21(2) of the American Convention in relation to articles 8(1) and 25(1) therein, all of that in conjunction with Article 1(1) of the Convention, to the detriment of María Salvador Chiriboga. * * * 119. As to the alleged failure to comply with Article 2 of the Convention, the Commission pointed out that Ecuador, as State Party to the Convention, must ensure that the rights enshrined therein are faithfully adopted by the domestic legislation. According to the Commission, in this case, those rights have been violated in relation to the effectiveness of the remedy. Moreover, the Commission requested the Court to determine the connection between the alleged violations of Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention and Articles 1(1) and 2 therein. 120. The representatives agreed with the arguments raised by the Commission. They further alleged that, in the case at hand, there has been an application of certain rules that are incompatible with the Convention. Lastly, they pointed out that the State should introduce a legislative reform that allow the discussion of all the rights that the current legislation does not allow the people subjected to an expropriation proceedings having.114 121. Moreover, the State alleged that it has never obstructed the access of Salvador Chiriboga siblings to file the recourses provided for in the Act of Administrative Contentious Jurisdiction in order to object to the administrative acts that the alleged victim considered necessary. It also pointed out that the Constitution provides for guarantees in order to protect the rights established in international treaties, which were used by the representatives. 122. The Court has interpreted that the adjustment of the domestic legislation to the parameters established in the Convention implies the adoption of two different measures, namely: i) the elimination of any norms and practices that in any way violate the guarantees provided under the Convention or disregard the rights therein enshrined or obstruct its exercise; y ii) the promulgation of norms and the development of practices conducive to the effective observance of those guarantees.115 The first kind of measures is satisfied with the amendment,116 the repealing or annulment,117 of the norms or 114 Among the set of legal rules they suggested, the following are included: a) the declaration of public utility and the condemnation in only one proceeding and to be granted the possibility of filing an appeal to the decision of the judge; b) to grant the right to the person subjected to an expropriation proceedings of being heard before the decision of immediate occupation is made; and c) to deposit the price of the property in accordance with the real market value (record of preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs; Volume V, p. 757). 115 Cf. Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. V. Perú. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 30, 1999. Series C No. 52, para. 207; 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 Zambrano Vélez, supra note 53, para. 57. 116 Cf. Case of Raxcacó Reyes. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 133, para. 87 and 125; Case of Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamín et al. ; supra note 54; para.. 113 and 212. Case of Fermín Ramírez. Judgment of June 20, 2005. Series C No. 126, para. 97 and 130; and Case of Zambrano Vélez, supra note 53, para. 57.