214. The said norm of the new Code of Criminal Procedure was complemented by the adoption of Law No. 278/2004 of August 23, 2004, on “The implementation of the criminal procedure established by Law No. 76-02.”276 Article 15 of this law stipulates that: Article 15. Annulments. The following legal provisions with all their amendments and supplementary provisions are annulled: […] 13. All the procedural norms relating to the criminal prosecution of the members of the National Police and/or Armed Forces contained in the Code of Police Justice included in Law No. 285 of June 29, 1966, and in the Code of Justice of the Armed Forces, included in Law No. 3483 of February 13, 1953, and their respective amendments, as well as any other law establishing norms in this regard. All the above without prejudice to the disciplinary powers conferred on the internal bodies of the said institutions. All legal provisions and all norms of criminal procedure established in special laws that are contrary to this law, are annulled and abrogated. 215. Similarly, article 254 of the 2012 Constitution stipulates that “[t]he military jurisdiction only has competence to try the military offenses established in the relevant laws. The Armed Forces shall have a military disciplinary regime for those offenses that do not constitute violations of the military criminal regime.”277 In addition, the Armed Forces Military Disciplinary Regulations, adopted by Decree No. 2/08, stipulate the following: Article 52. The acts committed by members of the Armed Forces that constitute crimes and offenses shall fall within the sphere of ordinary criminal or military law and, therefore, shall be heard and punished by the competent bodies, in accordance with the laws and provisions in force. 2. Conclusions 216. The Court recalls that Article 2 of the Convention establishes the general obligation of every State Party to adapt its domestic law to the provisions of the Convention in order to guarantee the rights recognized therein, which means that measures of domestic law must be effective (the effet utile principle).278 Therefore, the Court reiterates that, at the time of the facts, the State was in non-compliance with the obligation contained in Article 2 of the American Convention, in relation to Articles 8 and 25 of this instrument. 217. However, the changes to the law in the Dominican Republic between 2002 and 2010 established the competence of the ordinary jurisdiction to try offenses committed by military personnel and also established the exceptional nature of the military jurisdiction, exclusively for disciplinary offenses and offenses that are strictly related to the armed forces. Consequently, the Court concludes that, with the current Dominican legislation, the State has remedied its obligation to adopt domestic legal provisions established in Article 2 of the American Convention. VII-5 OBLIGATION TO RESPECT AND GUARANTEE RIGHTS WITHOUT DISCRIMINATION 276 Law No. 278/04 on the implementation of the criminal procedure established by Law No. 76-02 of August 23, 2004. Available at http://www.suprema.gov.do/consultas/leyes/detalle_leyes.aspx?ID=420 (last consulted on October 20, 2012). 277 Constitution of the Dominican Republic. Published in Gaceta Oficial No. 10561 of January 26, 2010 (file of attachments to the representatives’ final written arguments, folio 4212). 278 Cf. Case of Garrido and Baigorria v. Argentina. Reparations and costs. Judgment of August 27, 1998. Series C No. 39, paras. 68 and 69, and Case of Fornerón and daughter v. Argentina, supra, para. 130. 58