179. However, for this Court, not only the suppression or issuance of regulations in domestic legislation guarantee the rights enshrined in the American Convention, pursuant with the obligation included in Article 2 of that instrument. The development of State practices conducive to the effective observance of the rights and liberties enshrined therein is also required. Consequently, the existence of a regulation does not in itself guarantee that its application will be adequate. It is necessary that the application of the regulations or their interpretation, as jurisdictional practices and a manifestation of state public order, conforms to the same purpose sought by Article 2 of the Convention. 239 In practical terms, the interpretation of articles 182 and 396 of the COIP must be consistent with the convention’s principles on freedom of expression, contained in article 13 of the American Convention. 180. In relation to the foregoing, this Court has established in its case law that it is aware that all State authorities are subject to the rule of law and, therefore, are obliged to apply the provisions in force in the legal system. But when a State has ratified an international treaty such as the American Convention, all its organs, including its judges, are subject to it. This obliges them to ensure that the effects of the provisions of the Convention are not undermined by the application of regulations contrary to its object and purpose. Thus, judges and bodies linked to the administration of justice at all levels are obliged to exercise, ex officio, a conventionality control between the domestic regulations and the American Convention, evidently in the within the framework of their respective competencies and the corresponding procedural regulations. In this task, they must take into account not only the treaty, but also the interpretation thereof made by the Inter-American Court, the ultimate interpreter of the American Convention. 240 181. Thus, it is necessary that the interpretations referred to the cases that involve lawsuits for slander or for statements that discredit or dishonor another, in application of articles 182 and 396 of the COIP, be adapted to the principles established in the case law of this Court regarding freedom of expression, which have been reiterated in this case (supra, par. 87 to 120). 182. Additionally, considering that media pluralism and diversity constitute substantial requirements for democratic debate, the Court decides that, within a reasonable period of time, and as a guarantee of non-repetition, the State must adopt legislative measures to achieve full realization of the exercise of freedom of expression, in order to make it compatible with the State’s obligation to prevent public officials from resorting to judicial channels to file lawsuits for slander and insult with the aim of silencing criticism of their actions in the public sphere, in accordance with the parameters established in this Judgment. As part of compliance with this measure, the State must establish channels, alternative to criminal proceedings, for the protection of the honor of public officials with respect to opinions related to their actions in the public sphere (supra, par. 93 and 94). D.2.2. Implementation of training programs 183. The Court considers it pertinent to order the State to create and implement, within one year, a training plan for public officials, to guarantee that they have the Cf. Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 23, 2009. Series C No. 209, par. 338, and Case of Fernández Prieto y Tumbeiro v. Argentina. Merits and Reparations. Judgment of September 1, 2020. Series C No. 411, par. 122. 239 240 Cf. Case of Almonacid Arellano et al. v. Chile. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 154, par. 124, and Case of Cuya Lavy et al. v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 28, 2021. Series C No. 438, par. 206. 58