53 * * 173. * Article 1(1) of the Convention states that: The States Parties to this Convention undertake to respect the rights and freedoms recognized herein and to ensure to all persons subject to their jurisdiction the free and full exercise of those rights and freedoms, without any discrimination for reasons of race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, economic status, birth, or any other social condition. 174. Article 2 of the Convention states that: Where the exercise of any of the rights or freedoms referred to in Article 1 is not already ensured by legislative or other provisions, the States Parties 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 freedoms. 175. Prior to any consideration of this point, it is necessary to refer to what this Court has already said in the judgment regarding preliminary objections rendered in this case on September 3, 1998, to wit: Although the Commission had not raised the alleged violation of Article 2 of the Convention in the application to the Court, the Court is authorized to examine the issue motu propio. Article 2 of the Convention, like Article 1(1), sets forth a general obligation-that is added to the specific obligations as to each of the protected rights- and the Court, as the judicial organ of supervision of the Convention, has the official duty to determine its fulfillment by the States Parties. The Respondent State can not, by means of a preliminary objection, attempt to negate this authority which is inherent to the jurisdiction of the Court.69 176. As the Court has held, the States Parties to the Convention cannot dictate measures that violate the rights and freedoms recognized in it.70 Also, this Tribunal has affirmed that “a rule per se can violate Article 2 of the Convention, whether or not it has been applied in a specific case.”71 177. The Court notes that, in this case, according to the present judgment, the State violated Articles 7(1), 7(2), 7(3), 7(4) and 7(5), 5(1) and 5(2), 8(1), 8(2), 8(2)c), d), f) and g), 8(3), 8(5), 9, 7(6) and 25(1) of the American Convention to the detriment of Luis Alberto Cantoral-Benavides, meaning that it has not complied with the general duty of respecting the rights and freedoms recognized in the 69 Cantoral-Benavides Case, Preliminary Objections. Judgment of September 3, 1998. Series C No. 40, para. 46. 70 Castillo-Petruzzi et al. Case, supra note 9, para. 205; International responsibility for the promulgation and enforcement of laws in violation of the Convention (arts. 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. 71 cfr. Castillo-Petruzzi et al. Case, supra note 9, para. 205; and Suárez-Rosero Case, supra note 10, para. 98.