the Convention are effective.303 In other words, States not only have the positive obligation to adopt the necessary legislative measures to ensure the exercise of the rights recognized in the Convention, but they must also avoid enacting laws that prevent the free exercise of these rights, and eliminating or amending laws that protect them.304 As the Court has indicated previously (supra para. 227), Article 2 of the American Convention has not been violated in this case. 276. In the instant case, the main issue – and the one on which the Court has focused – is the examination of the alleged human rights violations resulting from the decisions taken by the National Congress on November 25, 2004, and December 8, 2004. The Court did not analyze the compatibility of a specific law with the American Convention, because that was not the purpose of this case. Furthermore, the representatives did not provide sufficient evidence to allow the Court to infer that the violations arose from a specific problem in the text of the laws, so that it is not possible to order the amendment of laws that are not directly related to the violations declared in this case. Consequently, in the circumstances of this case, it is not pertinent to order the adoption, amendment or adaptation of specific provisions of domestic law. C. Compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage 1. Pecuniary damage Arguments of the Commission and the parties 277. The Commission asked the Court to order the State “[t]o pay the victims the salaries, pensions, and employment and/or social benefits that they failed to receive from the time they were terminated until the date on which their mandate would have ended.” 278. The representatives asked that the Court order the State to pay “monetary compensation for damage related to the amount of the remuneration that the judges failed to receive […] during the time that remained until the end of their legal and constitutional term.” They indicated that the calculation should be made “based on the remuneration (salary plus social benefits) that the [judges] failed to receive owing to their dismissal.” They requested that the amount should not be less than the “result of multiplying the number of months that remained of their term (27 months) by their average monthly remuneration during the year in which they were dismissed (2004).” They calculated the pecuniary damage for judges Miguel Camba Campos, Pablo Enrique Herrería Bonnet, Manuel Stalin Jaramillo Córdova, Jaime Manuel Nogales Izureta, Luis Vicente Rojas Bajaña, Mauro Leonidas Terán Cevallos and Simón Bolívar Zabala Guzmán as US$219,112.70 and for Freddy Oswaldo Mauricio Cevallos Bueno as US$220,089.83. The representatives indicated that “the amounts contributed by both parties should be considered an acceptance by the State of the amounts corresponding to loss of earnings for the months remaining of the term of office of the former” judges. They also asked that “interest should be calculated from the time of their dismissal until effective compliance with the judgment.” 279. Regarding Manuel Jaramillo Córdova, the representatives indicated that “he was the alternate member for Oswaldo Cevallos, President of the Constitutional Tribunal,” and that “[u]nder the internal regulations of the Constitutional Tribunal in force at the time, since the 303 Cf. Case of Garrido and Baigorria v. Argentina. Reparations and costs. Judgment of August 27, 1998. Series C No. 39, para. 68, and Case of Mendoza et al. v. Argentina, para. 323. 304 Cf. Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 30, 1999. Series C No. 52, para. 207, and Case of Mendoza et al. v. Argentina, para. 323. 80