- 70 impede their exercise.372 On the other hand, the enactment of laws and the implementation of practices leading to the effective observance of such guarantees.373 214. As this Court has indicated on other occasions, the provisions of domestic law that are adopted for such purposes must be effective (principle of the practical effects or effet utile), which means that the State is obliged to adopt and incorporate into its domestic law all necessary measures to ensure that the provisions of the Convention are truly implemented and complied with.374 215. The State’s failure to harmonize its domestic law resulted in a situation of uncertainty as to the procedure to be followed and the competent bodies to decide the disciplinary proceedings against the presumed victims. In addition, the consequent application to the presumed victims of a procedure that was not established by law, but rather was the result of a combination of the procedures established by law, due in part to this legislative omission, infringed legal certainty and the rights of the presumed victims when disciplinary sanctions against them were decided. Based on the foregoing considerations, and bearing mind the findings in Chapter VII-1 supra, the Court concludes that subjecting the four presumed victims to disciplinary proceedings and organs that were not established by law constituted a violation of Article 8(1) of the Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of the Convention, to the detriment of Adán Guillermo López Lone, Tirza del Carmen Flores Lanza, Luis Alonso Chévez de la Rocha and Ramón Enrique Barrios Maldonado. 216. Notwithstanding this general violation as regards the disciplinary proceedings to which the presumed victims were subjected, owing to the circumstances of this case, the Court finds it necessary to analyze other aspects of the violation of Article 8(1) of the Convention, particularly (i) the lack of competence and independence of the Judicial Service Council to decide the appeals against the rulings of the Supreme Court; (ii) the lack of impartiality of the Judicial Service Council, and (iii) the lack of impartiality of the Supreme Court of Justice. B.2.a) Lack of competence and independence of the Judicial Service Council 217. The Judicial Service Council, the entity that reviewed the dismissal decisions issued by the Supreme Court, lacked due independence to act as an organ of review or appeal with regard to the Supreme Court, because it was an auxiliary body of the Supreme Court and depended on it. According to the Judicial Service Act, its Regulations, and the rules of procedure of the Judicial Service Council, the latter “depend[ed] on the Supreme Court of Justice” and its “essential function […] shall be to assist the Supreme Court of Justice as regards personnel management policy, and to decide, in its respective instance, any conflicts that occur as a result of the application of this law and its regulations.”375 372 Cf. 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 Expelled Dominicans and Haitians v. Dominican Republic, supra, para. 270. 373 Cf. Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru, supra, para. 207, and Case of Expelled Dominicans and Haitians v. Dominican Republic, supra, para. 270. 374 Cf. Case of “The Last Temptation of Christ” (Olmedo Bustos et al.) v. Chile, supra, para. 87; and Case of Omar Humberto Maldonado Vargas et al. v. Chile, supra, para. 124. 375 The Judicial Service Act establishes that: “Article 7. The Judicial Service Council shall depend on the Supreme Court of Justice. Article 8. The essential function of the Judicial Service Council shall be to assist the Supreme Court of Justice, as regards personnel management policy, and to decide, within its respective instance, any conflicts that occur as a result of the application of this law and its regulations” (evidence file, folio 4152). These provisions are reiterated in articles 22 and 23 of the Regulations governing the Judicial Service Act (evidence file, folios 163 and 164). In addition, article 3 of the rules of procedure of the Judicial Service Council establishes that “[t]he Judicial Service Council is the highest organ of the judicial service regime, depending on the Supreme Court of Justice; it shall have as an essential function to assist the latter as regards personnel management policy, and to decide, in its respective instance, any conflicts that occur as a result of the application of the Judicial Service Act and its Regulations” (evidence file, folio 4208).