motions brief, since it has verified that no legal arguments were presented that would make it possible to specifically establish the lack of suitability and effectiveness of the extraordinary federal appeal or of the motion for reconsideration of dismissal of appeal filed by Mr. Gorigoitía's defense counsel. B.2 Duty to adopt domestic legal effects and the federal clause 55. The Court has found that Article 279 of the Convention establishes the general duty of the States Parties to adapt their domestic laws to its provisions in order to ensure the rights that it recognizes. This duty involves the adoption of two types of measures. On the one hand, the elimination of norms and practices of any nature that entail a violation of the guarantees established in the Convention; on the other hand, the enactment of laws and the implementation of practices leading to the effective observance of such guarantees.80 It is precisely with regard to the adoption of these measures that the Court has recognized that all the authorities of a State Party to the Convention have the obligation to exercise review of compliance with human rights conventions,81 so that the application and interpretation of domestic law is consistent with the state’s international obligations in the area of human rights.82 As regards Article 28, the Court has established that “case law, which has stood unchanged for more than a century, holds that a state cannot plead its federal structure to avoid complying with an international obligation.”83 56. In this case, the Court ruled that the literal meaning of the pertinent rules in the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Province of Mendoza, applicable at the time of the events, through cassation appeal, made it impossible for a higher court to review matters of fact and/or evidence in the case of Mr. Gorigoitía (supra paras. 51 and 53). The Court therefore concluded that the state failed to comply with the obligation to comprehensively review the judgment, as required by Article 8(2)(h) of the Convention, read in conjunction with Article 1(1) of the same instrument. For the same reasons, the Court concludes that the state failed to comply with its obligations under Article 2 of the Convention. The Court observes that the state did not dispute that the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Province of Mendoza applied at the time of the facts places very strict requirements on cassation appeals, contrary to the provisions of Article 8(2)(h) of the Convention. What it argued is that the courts must apply the doctrine set forth in the "Casal ruling" in terms of review of a conviction, and that there were subsequent state acts aimed at ensuring comprehensive review in matters of cassation appeals. In this regard, while recognizing the importance of the “Casal ruling,” the Court concludes that the state failed to comply with the obligation set forth in Article 2 of the American Convention, read in conjunction with Article 8(2)(h) of the same instrument. 57. Regarding the representatives' argument related to the alleged violation of Article 28 of the Convention, the Court recalls that an argument regarding the possible non-observance of obligations arising from Article 28 of the Convention must refer to a fact with sufficient importance 79 Article 2 of the Convention establishes 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.” 80 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. Preliminary Objections, Merits, and Reparations. Judgment of May 14, 2013. Series C No. 26, para. 293. 81 Cf. Case of Almonacid Arellano et al. v. Chile. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 154, para. 124, and Case of Órdenes Guerra et al. v. Chile. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 29, 2018. Series C No. 372, para. 135. 82 Cf. Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 23, 2009. Series C No. 209, para. 340, and Case of Andrade Salmón v. Bolivia. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of December 1, 2016. Series C No. 330, para. 93. 83 Case of Garrido and Baigorria v. Argentina. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 27, 1998. Series C No. 39, para. 46. 18