was filed. With regard to the second element, it has not been proved that the members of Jeremías Osorio Rivera’s family have taken steps to halt the investigations. To the contrary, it has been established that, in addition to filing two complaints concerning the enforced disappearance of his brother, Porfirio Osorio Rivera played an active role as a civil party in all the domestic proceedings. 331 As regards the conduct of the judicial authorities, the Court observes that the excessive prolongation of the domestic proceedings was due exclusively to the conduct of the authorities responsible for heading the proceedings who failed to take all the measures required to ensure their progress ex officio. 203. Over and above the foregoing, the Court considers that the criminal proceedings, as a whole, have exceeded considerably the time that could be considered reasonable in order to conduct serious, diligent and exhaustive investigations into the facts relating to the enforced disappearance of Jeremías Osorio Rivera. B.4. Failure to define the crime of enforced disappearance appropriately 204. The Court has already referred to the general obligation of the States to adapt their domestic laws to the American Convention. 332 This is also applicable in the case of the signature of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons, because it is derived from the customary norm according to which a State that has acceded to an international treaty must amend its domestic law as necessary in order to ensure the execution of the obligations assumed. 333 331 In the proceeding before the special jurisdiction, the jurisdictional organ assessed the evidence inappropriately, and this caused the Transitory Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Republic to annul the judgment of December 17, 2008, and to order that a new oral proceeding be held, which concluded on November 4, 2011, with the acquittal of the accused. The victim’s family members, as civil party, filed an appeal for annulment and, pursuant to domestic law, had 10 days to provide the grounds for this. On December 13, 2011, the lawyers of the members of Jeremías Osorio Rivera’s family requested a copy of the judgment of November 4, 2011, in order to provide the grounds for the said appeal. Owing to the absence of a reply, on February 1, 2012, they repeated their request and indicated that they had not been notified of the decision recording the filing of the appeal and the requirement to provide the grounds. However, once again the National Criminal Chamber did not respond to this request. Consequently, the defense counsel of the members of Jeremías Osorio Rivera’s family filed a complaint before the Office for Judicial Supervision on February 16, 2012, which was admitted for processing and, on August 21, 2013, decided favorably. On March 26, 2012, the Chamber’s decision was notified granting the appeal for annulment and a copy of the judgment was forwarded. On April 11, 2012, the grounds for the appeal were provided. However, the representatives noted that the file of the Osorio Rivera case had been forwarded to the Supreme Court on March 30, 2012, without the required substantiation. Cf. Brief filed before the National Criminal Chamber on December 13, 2011 (evidence file, volume VIII, annex 25 to the brief with motions, arguments and evidence, folio 4181); Brief filed before the National Criminal Chamber on February 1, 2012 (evidence file, volume VIII, annex 27 to the brief with motions, arguments and evidence, folio 4186); Brief filed before the Judiciary’s Office for Judicial Supervision on February 16, 2012 (evidence file, volume VIII, annex 28 to the brief with motions, arguments and evidence, folios 4187 to 4189); Decision No. 01 issued by Office for Judicial Supervision on March 12, 2012 (evidence file, volume VIII, annex 29 to the brief with motions, arguments and evidence, folios 4196 and 4197); Record of notification on March 2, 2012, of the decision of November 21, 2011 (evidence file, volume VIII, annex 31 to the brief with motions, arguments and evidence, folio 4202); Brief substantiating the appeal filed on April 11, 2012 (evidence file, volume VIII, annex 33 to the brief with motions, arguments and evidence, folios 4205 to 4225); Brief filed before the Judiciary’s Office for Judicial Supervision on July 6, 2012 (evidence file, volume VIII, annex 30 to the brief with motions, arguments and evidence, folios 4198 to 4201), and Decision of the Head of the 16th Unit of the Office for Judicial Supervision of August 21, 2013 (evidence file, volume XII, annexes to the representatives’ final arguments, folios 5452 to 5466). 332 In the American Convention this principle is contained in its Article 2, which establishes the general obligation of each State party to adapt its domestic law to the provisions of this instrument, in order to guarantee the rights recognized therein, which means that the provisions of domestic law must be effective (principle of the effet utile). Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panama, supra, para. 179. This obligation entails the adoption of measures of two types: on the one hand, the elimination of norms and practices of any kind that entail the violation of the guarantees established in the Convention and, on the other, the enactment of norms and the implementation of practices leading to the effective observance of the said guarantees. Cf. Case of La Cantuta v. Peru, supra, para. 172, and Case of Mendoza et al. v. Argentina. Preliminary objections, merits and reparations. Judgment of May 14, 2013. Series C No. 260, para. 293. 333 Cf. Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña v. Bolivia, supra, para. 193. 74