42 of race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, economic status, birth, or any other social condition. 2. For the purposes of this Convention, "person" means every human being. Article 2. Domestic Legal Effects Where the exercise of any of the rights or liberties referred to in Article 1 is not already ensured by legislative or other provisions, the States [P]arties undertake to adopt, in accordance with their constitutional processes and the provisions of this Convention, such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to give effect to those rights or liberties. 166. The Court has maintained that States Parties to the Convention may not order measures that violate the rights and freedoms recognized therein32. Neither may States fail to take measures of a legislative nature “or of any other nature that might be necessary to make such rights and freedoms effective”, in the terms of Article 2 of the Convention. These measures are necessary to “ensure [the] free and full exercise” of these rights and freedoms, in the terms of Article 1.1 of this instrument. 167. In the Garrido and Baigorria case (1998)33, the Court clearly stated that the American Convention “establishes the obligation of each State Party to adapt domestic law to the provisions of that Convention, so as to ensure the rights embodied therein”. In the same judgment, the Court said that [t]his obligation of the State Parte implies that the domestic legal measures must be effective. This means the State must adopt all measures necessary so that provisions contained in the Convention have full force and effect within its domestic legal system. Those measures are effective when the community, in general, adapts its conduct to conform to the principles of the Convention and when, if those principles are breached, the penalties provided for therein are effectively applied. 168. This Court has already stated that the Peruvian State violated Article 25 of the Convention (supra 133) which, in its paragraph 2.c, establishes the commitment of the States to “ensure that the competent authorities shall enforce… [simple and rapid] remedies when granted” to protect individuals against acts that violate their fundamental rights. The Court considers that the Peruvian State has not ensured Gustavo Cesti Hurtado’s enjoyment of his rights and freedoms by refusing, through its military authorities, to comply with a legitimate order issued by a competent tribunal, nor has it adopted the necessary measures to this end. 169. With regard to the allegations of the State that the Court has attacked the sovereignty of Peru in various judgments pronounced in cases brought against the State, the Court considers it relevant to repeat what it stated in the judgment on preliminary exceptions in the Castillo Petruzzi et al case:34 32. Suárez Rosero case, Judgment of November 12, 1997, Series C, Nº 35, para. 97. 33. Garrido and Baigorria case, Reparations (Article 63.1 of the American Convention on Human Rights), Judgment of August 27, 1998. Series C No 39, para. 68 and 69. 34. Castillo Petruzzi et al case, Preliminary Objections, Judgment of September 4, 1998. Series C No. 41, para. 101 and 102.