54 Convention and of guaranteeing their free and full exercise, as established in Article 1(1) of same. 178. The Court observes, furthermore, as it has in the past, that the provisions contained in the emergency legislation adopted by the State to combat terrorism, and in particular Decree Laws No. 25.475 and 25.659, applied to Mr. Luis Alberto Cantoral-Benavides in the present case, violate Article 2 of the American Convention, because the fact that said decrees had been issued and were in force in Peru means that the State had not taken the proper steps of internal law to enforce the rights embodied in the Convention. On this matter, the Court has said that the general duty set forth in Article 2 of the American Convention implies the adoption of measures on two fronts. On the one hand, the suppression of rules and practices of any kind that entail the violation of the guarantees set forth in the Convention. On the other, the issuance of rules and the development of practices leading to the effective observance of said guarantees.72 179. As a consequence, the Court concludes that the State has not complied with the general obligations contained in Articles 1(1) and 2 of the American Convention. XVI VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 2, 6 AND 8 OF THE INTER-AMERICAN CONVENTION TO PREVENT AND PUNISH TORTURE 180. As regards the violation of Articles 2, 6, and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, the Commission alleged that: a) The State violated same to the detriment of Luis Alberto CantoralBenavides; b) the Prosecutor Julia Eguía Dávalos, responsible for investigating allegations of torture, decided “TO REJECT the petition interposed in this case … against agents of the DIVICOTE 3-DINCOTE because it LACKED THE ELEMENTS OR EVIDENCE required to conduct a judicial investigation of the people denounced;” and c) in its final arguments, the Commission indicated that Peru had violated Articles 6 and 8 of the Inter-American Convention Against Torture “by not adopting ‘effective measures to prevent and punish torture’ and by not investigating and punishing those responsible for such acts.” 181. For its part, the State alleged that it had not violated the cited articles of the Inter-American Convention Against Torture. Also, it reiterated the arguments it had raised to show that it had not violated Article 5 of the Convention. * 182. 72 * * Article 2 of the Inter-American Convention Against Torture states that: cfr. Durand and Ugarte Case, supra note 45, para. 137; and Castillo-Petruzzi et al. Case, supra note 9, para. 207.