nature, so that conduct defined as criminal offenses committed by soldiers will be heard by the ordinary jurisdiction. 206. In addition, the State indicated that, in conformity with the mandate of Article 2 of the Convention, in January 2010, the text of the Dominican Constitution had been amended, and its article 254 now establishes that the military jurisdiction may only hear cases related to military offenses established in the laws on the matter, and that the armed forces will have a military disciplinary regimen applicable to those offenses that do not constitute offenses against the military criminal regime.” B. Considerations of the Court 207. The Court reiterates that Article 2 (Domestic Legal Effects) of the American Convention establishes the general obligation of the State Parties to adapt their domestic law to the provisions of the Convention to guarantee the rights recognized therein. The Court has established that this obligation entails the adoption of two types of measures. On the one hand, the elimination of norms and practices of any nature that result in the violation of the guarantees established in the Convention and, on the other, the enactment of laws and the implementation of practices leading to the effective observance of the said guarantees.268 208. Regarding the obligation to adopt legislative or other measures to guarantee the full exercise and enjoyment of the human rights established in the Convention, the Court has established that it is not enough that domestic law determine the proceedings and competences of the military courts; but that, over and above this provision, the laws must define clearly who are soldiers, what are the criminal offenses that pertain to the military jurisdiction, determine the illegality of the unlawful conduct by describing the harm or jeopardy to military rights seriously affected, and must justify the exercise of military punitive power, and specify the corresponding sanction.”269 209. First, the Court observes that the intervention of the military jurisdiction was based on article 3 of Law No. 3483 of 1953, that established the Code of Justice of the Armed Forces, and which established the following: Article 3 The military courts are competent to try special offenses of a military order established in the second volume of this Code, except as indicated herein. Offenses of all kinds committed by soldiers or persons attached to the armed forces in military barracks, camps or any other military or naval facility or establishment or on board ships or aircraft of the State shall be tried by the military jurisdiction. Offenses committed by soldiers in the exercise of their functions, wherever they are committed, are also subject to the military jurisdiction. […] All other crimes, offenses or misdemeanors committed by soldiers or persons attached to the armed forces will be tried by ordinary courts, in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Criminal Code, and the ordinary criminal laws. 210. In this regard, the Court observes that the provision of the said article 3 of the Code of Justice of the Armed Forces (supra para. 57), in force in 2000, functioned as a rule and not as an exception, a characteristic that is essential for the military jurisdiction in order to be in keeping with the standards established by this Court. 270 In its report of July 23, 2000, 268 Cf. Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru, supra, para. 207, and Case of Fornerón and daughter v. Argentina, supra, para. 131. 269 110. Case of Palamara Iribarne v. Chile, supra, para. 127, and Case of Usón Ramírez v. Venezuela, supra, para. 270 Cf. Case of Durand and Ugarte v. Peru. Merits, supra, para. 117, and Case of Cabrera García and Montiel v. Mexico, supra, para. 206 56