90 effects, Perú's violation of the Convention in passing said laws and the effectiveness of the laws as such in the case of Barrios Altos. Therefore, the Court notes that the dispute existing between the Inter-American Commission and the States and the representatives in relation with the State's duties pursuant to Article 2 of the Convention, is centered around the determination of whether said laws still have effects in the light of the Court's pronouncement in the above-mentioned case. In addition, on the assumption that the laws continue in force, it must be decided whether that would constitute a violation of the Convention by the State, or, provided the laws do not continue in force, whether their mere existence constitutes a violation of the Convention, and whether the State should consequently adopt further measures of domestic law in that regard. 170. In relation with the general duty set out in Article 2 of the Convention, the Court has repeatedly held that This principle is universally valid and has been characterized in case law as an evident principle ("principe allant de soi"; Exchange of Greek and Turkish populations, avis consultatif, 1925, C.P.J.I., Series B, No. 10, p. 20).138 171. This principle is contained in Article 2 of the Convention, which sets forth the general duty of each State Party to adjust its domestic law to the provisions thereof to guarantee 139 which implies that the domestic law measures must be the rights enshrined therein, 140 effective pursuant to the effet utile principle. 172. Certainly, Article 2 of the Convention fails to define which measures are appropriate to adjust the domestic law to it; obviously, this is so because it depends on the nature of the rule requiring adjustment and the circumstances of each specific case. Therefore, the Court has interpreted that such adjustment implies adopting two sets of measures, to wit: (i) repealing rules and practices of any nature involving violations to the guarantees provided for in the Convention or disregarding the rights enshrined therein or hamper the exercise of such rights, and (ii) issuing rules and developing practices aimed at effectively observing said guarantees.141 The Court takes the view that the first set of duties is breached while the rule or practice running counter to the Convention remains part of the legal system,142 and is therefore satisfied by modifying,143 repealing, or otherwise annulling,144 or amending,145 such rules or practices, as appropriate. 138 Cf. Case of Almonacid-Arellano et al., supra note 6, para. 117; Case of “Juvenile Reeducation Institute.” Judgment of September 2, 2994. Series C No. 112, para. 205, and Case of Bulacio. Judgment of September 18, 2003. Series C No. 100, para. 140. 139 Cf. Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute”, supra note 139, para. 205; Case of Bulacio, supra note 139, para. 142, and Case of the “Five Pensioners” Judgment of February 28, 2003. Series C No. 98, para. 164. 140 Cf. Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute”, supra note 139, para. 205. 141 Cf. Case of Almonacid-Arrellano et al., supra note 6, para. 118; Case of Ximenes-Lopes, supra note 6, para. 83, and Case of “The Last Temptation of Christ” (Olmedo-Bustos et al.). Judgment of February 5, 2001. Series C No. 73, para. 85. 142 Cf. Case of “The Last Temptation of Christ” (Olmedo-Bustos et al.), supra note 142, para. 87 to 90. 143 Cf. Case of Fermín Ramírez, supra note 128, para. 96 to 98, and Case of Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. Judgment of June 21, 2002. Series C No. 94, para. 113. 144 Cf. Case of Caesar. Judgment of March 11, 2005. Series C No. 123, para. 91, 93 and 94.