240. This Court’s attention is also drawn to the fact that, in their decisions of 2001 and 2002, the domestic judicial organs failed to take into account or assess the elements provided by the testimony given before the Investigating Court by an individual who worked as a “police informer” of the Theft Department of the National Police (supra paras. 157 and 158). This deponent stated that he had seen Narciso González Medina, injured, in the Homicide Department of this State entity in the early morning hours of May 27, 1994, and had witnessed when he was taken from that place by two people, who he identified, in a vehicle, whose license plate number he noted down, and that his home was searched and he had been subjected to illegal detention presumably related to the information he possessed about the case of Mr. González Medina. 241. Since this was an investigation of forced disappearance, the Court considers that, to comply satisfactorily with the obligation to investigate, the State authorities should have assessed, as a whole, the testimony given by several witnesses, as well as other probative elements and indications that pointed to the fact that Narciso González Medina had been detained in several State entities and that official documents had been lost, destroyed or altered (supra para. 234), in order to investigate thoroughly what happened to Mr. González Medina, rather than merely trying to determine whether there was sufficient evidence to charge the three individuals considered suspects (supra paras. 117 and 119). E.1.c) Domestic Legal Effects (Article 2 of the American Convention) 242. The Court will proceed to analyze the alleged violation of Article 2 of the Convention (supra para. 199), because the alleged victims and their representatives are allowed to invoke the violation of rights other than those included in the application, provided these violations are related to the facts contained in the said document, because the alleged victims possess all the rights embodied in the Convention. 275 243. Article 2 (Domestic Legal Effects) of the American Convention establishes the general obligation of the States Parties to adapt their domestic law to the provisions of the Convention in order to guarantee the rights embodied therein. The Court has established that this obligation entails the adoption of measures of two kinds. On the one hand, the elimination of norms and practices of any kind that involve the 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 the said guarantees. 276 244. Consequently, in compliance with the said Article 2, the State must ensure that the application of the existing provisions of domestic law allow a satisfactory investigation of forced disappearance to be conducted and, if they are insufficient, adopt the legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures that will be effective to guarantee protection against the said violation. It is incumbent on the State to adapt the functioning of its institutions in order to guarantee an investigation of forced disappearance in all its competent professionals, using the most appropriate procedures. Cf. Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez v. Honduras. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 7, 2003. Series C No. 99, para. 127, and Case of the Barrios Family v. Venezuela, supra note 77, para. 235. 275 Cf. Case of Five Pensioners v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 28, 2003. Series C No. 98, para. 155, and Case of Barbani Duarte et al. v. Uruguay. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 13, 2011. Series C No. 234, para. 36. 276 Cf. Case of Five Pensioners v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 28, 2003. Series C No. 98, para. 155, and Case of Barbani Duarte et al. v. Uruguay. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 13, 2011. Series C No. 234, para. 36. 76