38 based on Article 8 of the Convention it is understood that victims of violations of human rights, or their relatives, must be able to be heard and act on their respective proceedings, both looking for the clarification of facts and the punishment of the liable parties and a proper compensation". 60 130. As a consequence, Article 8(1) of the American Convention, in connection with Article 25(1) thereof, confers to victims’ relatives the right to investigate their disappearance and death by State authorities, to carry out a process against the liable parties of unlawful acts, to impose the corresponding sanctions, and to compensate damages suffered by their relatives. 131. Based on the above, the Court declared that the State violated, to the detriment of Nolberto Durand Ugarte and Gabriel Pablo Ugarte Rivera and their relatives, Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention. XV NON-COMPLIANCE OF ARTICLES 1(1) AND 2 OBLIGATION TO RESPECT RIGHTS AND DUTY TO ADOPT DOMESTIC LEGAL EFFECTS 132. As for non-compliance of Articles 1(1) and 2 of the Convention, the Commission stated that: a) The State had violated the obligation to respect and guarantee the rights protected in the Convention. International Law of Human Rights imposes an obligation of lack of action, that is, State agents must refrain from taking actions that could invade the scope of liberty guaranteed in every of the rights listed in the treaty, and an obligation to take action in order to ensure every person a full enjoyment and exercise of said rights; b) violations of the Convention regarding Articles 4, 7(6), 8, 25(1), and 27(2) entailed the violation of Article 1(1) of the Convention; and c) the Convention in its Article 2 explicitly engages the States to adopt legislative dispositions or any other kind to enforce the rights and freedoms recognized in said Convention. On the one hand, said disposition compels the State to adopt new measures and, on the other hand, to revoke any incompatible legislation with the Convention. As a result, if Peru keeps Executive Order No. 23.201 (Organic Law of Military Justice) in its legislation, which contradicts the rights guaranteed in Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention, similarly violates its obligations according to Article 2 thereof. 133. The State claims that: a) Article 29 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Articles 28 and 33 of the American Declaration and Duties of Man, Article 2 of the European Convention, and Articles 29 and 32 of the American Convention must be taken into consideration to define its consubstantiality in relation to the right to life. 60 Villagrán Morales et al Case, supra note 10, para. 227.