116. To make such an analysis, the Court recalls that Article 2 of the Convention obligates the States Parties “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 the rights protected by the Convention. 96 This duty implies the adoption of two types of measures. One is the elimination of all norms and practices that violate the guarantees provided under the Convention, 97 whether because they disregard those rights or liberties or because their exercise is impeded. 98 The other is the promulgation of norms and the development of practices conducive to the effective observance of those guarantees. 99 117. As the Court has indicated on other opportunities, the provisions of domestic law that are adopted must be effective (principle of effet utile), which means that the State has the obligation to recognize and adopt in its legal order all the necessary measures in order that the provisions of the Convention are truly complied with and put into practice. 100 The Court has, thus, stated that the States not only have the positive obligation to adopt the legislative measures necessary to ensure the exercise of the rights established in the Convention, but they must also avoid enacting laws that impede the free exercise of those rights and, in turn, avoid eliminating or amending laws that protect them. 101 118. Finally, the Court notes that the Vienna Convention on the Law on Treaties provides in its Article 27 that a State Party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law, including the provisions of its constitution, to not comply with international treaties and to not exercise an adequate control of constitutionality. 119. There follows an analysis of the conventional nature of the norms relating to arraigo and to pre-trial detention that were applied in this case. The analysis will refer to the normative and jurisprudential developments recapitulated in the section on general considerations on personal liberty, the right to the presumption of innocence in investigations and the criminal proceedings (supra paras. 95 to 114) in the understanding that they are applicable to any restriction of liberty, such as a precautionary measure prior to a criminal conviction. a) Arraigo 120. The argument of the Commission and of the representatives refers to the institution of arraigo, which they contend contravenes various provisions of the Convention. The Court notes that arraigo is currently found in different bodies of law in Mexico (supra paras. 38 to 41) and that it has evolved over time. 102 The Court recalls that, at the federal level and before 2008, arraigo in Mexico was found in legislation, in both the Federal Code of Criminal Proceedings of 1999 and the Federal Law against 96 Cf. Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 30, 1999. Series C No. 52, para. 207, Case of González et al. v. Venezuela, supra, para. 103 and Case of Teachers of Chañaral and other municipalities v. Chile. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 10, 2021. Series C No. 443, para. 213. 97 Cf. Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 30, 1999. Series C No. 52, para. 207; Case of expelled Dominicans and Haitians v. Dominican Republic.. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 28, 2014. Series C No. 282 para. 270 and Case of Movilla Galarcio et al. v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 22, 2022. Series C No. 452, footnote 159. Cf. Case of Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. v. Trinidad and Tobago. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 21, 2002. Series C No. 94, para. 113 and Case of Teachers of Chañaral and other municipalities v. Chile, supra, para. 185 . 98 Cf. Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru, supra, para. 207, Case of expelled Dominicans and Haitians v. Dominican Republic, supra, para. 270 and Case of Movilla Galarcio et al. v. Colombia, supra, footnote 159. 99 100 Cf. Case of “The Last Temptation of Christ” (Olmedo Bustos et al.) v. Chile. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 5, 2001. Series C N° 73, para. 87 and Case of Vereda La Esperanza v. Colombia. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 31 2017. Series C No. 341, para. 84. 101 Cf. Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru, supra, para. 207 and Case of the Community Garífuna Triunfo de la Cruz and its members v. Honduras. Merits, Reparations and Costs. para. 187. 102 See, for example, expert opinion of Luis Raúl González Pérez, offered at the public hearing. 29