103 law a State is responsible for the acts of its agents undertaken in their official capacity and for their omissions, even when those agents act outside the sphere of their authority or violate internal law.66 179.In relationship with Article 2 of the Convention, the Court has expressed that [r]egarding people's law, a customary rule prescribes that a State, which has entered into an international agreement, must introduce in its national law the necessary assumed modifications to ensure the execution of obligations assumed. This rule is universally valid and has been considered by the jurisprudence as an evident principle ("principe allant de soi"; Echange des populadons grecques et turques, avis consultatif, 1925, C.P.J.I., Series B, No. 10, p. 20). In this sequence of ideas, the Arnerican Convention states the obligation of every State Party to adapt its national law to dispositions of said Convention, to guarantee the rights recognized therein.67 180. In the same sense, the Tribunal has expressed 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.68 181. The Court takes note of the fact that, as already pointed out in this judgment, the State violated Articles 9, 8(1), 8(2), 25 and 16 of the American Convention, to the detriment of the 270 workers, which means that it has not complied with the general duty established in Article 1(1) of the Convention to respect the rights and freedoms and to ensure the free and full exercise of those rights and freedoms. 182. As this Court has indicated, the States Parties to the American Convention may not adopt legislative or any other type of measures that violate the rights and freedoms therein recognised, because this would violate not only the conventional rules that enshrine the respective rights, but Article 2 of the Convention as well.69 183. In the instant case, the issuance and application of Law 25 retroactively violate conventional precepts and reveal that the State has not taken the appropriate domestic law measures to put into effect the rights enshrined in the Convention. In issuing a law, the State must ensure that it adjust to international protection rules, and must not permit its being contrary to the rights and liberties provided for in an international treaty to which it is a Party. 184. In respect of the foregoing, the Court concludes that the State failed to comply with the general obligations under Articles 1(1) and 2 of the American Convention. 66 Caballero Delgado and Santana Case. Judgemenet of December 8, 1995. Series C N° 22, para. 56; Godínez-Cruz Case. Judgment of January 20, 1989. Series C N° 5, para. 173, 178 and 179; and Velásquez-Rodríguez Case. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C N° 4, para. 164, 169 and 170. 67 cfr. Durand and Ugarte Case, supra note 12, para. 136. 68 cfr. Cantoral-Benavides Case, supra note 52, para. 178. 69 cfr. Cantoral-Benavides Case, supra note 52, para. 176; and International Liability for the Issuance and Application of Laws that Violate the Convention (articles 1 and 2 of the American Convention on Human Rights), Advisory Opinion OC-14/94 of December 9, 1994. Series A No. 14, para. 36.