would imply the loss of certain prison benefits that had been embodied in this Decree. However, the Court considers that such information is outside the scope of the obligations subject to the monitoring of compliance, as this issue was not addressed in the Judgment. Therefore, the Court does not consider it pertinent to rule on this matter. 16. Moreover, in exercise of its powers in relation to monitoring compliance, the Court reiterates the points made in the cases of Castillo Petruzzi et al. and Loayza Tamayo v. Peru, in which the State adopted measures to comply with the domestic legal reforms as a result of the violations declared in the respective Judgments. 10 It should be pointed out that the legislation under review in these cases also gave rise to the violations declared in this case. 17. In these orders for monitoring compliance, the Court considered that “measures were adopted intended to repeal some domestic norms that are contrary to the Convention […] through their annulment, reform, or new interpretation.”11 These reforms addressed: i) the infringement of the guarantee of a natural judge and the use of the military jurisdiction to try civilians12; ii) the questioning of the presumption of innocence by opening pre-trial investigations with an arrest warrant, 13 iii) prohibition of the recusal of judges 14; iv) violations of the right to defense;15 v) the impossibility of appointing an attorney until evidence is taken,16 vi) the possibility of being held incommunicado,17 and vii) the poor conditions of detention for those serving prison sentences.18 In this regard, the Court acknowledged that “some relevant legal norms have been adopted, whose content [wa]s designed to comply with standards of international human rights law.”19 18. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Court recalls that it is not only the suppression or issuing of regulations in domestic legislation that guarantees the rights enshrined in the American Convention, pursuant to the obligation set forth in Article 2 of that instrument. The development of State practices leading to the effective observance of the rights and liberties enshrined therein is also required. Therefore, the existence of a regulation does not, of itself, guarantee its effective application. The application of regulations or their interpretation, as jurisdictional practices and the expression of the State’s public order, must pursue the same purpose as Article 2 of the Convention. In other words, the Court emphasizes that the judges and organs associated with the 10 Cf. Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of July 1, 2011, Considering para. 19, and Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 1, 2011, Considering para. 34. 11 Cf. Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru, supra note 10, Considering para. 19. 12 Cf. Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru, supra note 10, Considering para. 12. 13 Cf. Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru, supra note 10, Considering para. 18. 14 Cf. Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru, supra note 10, Considering para. 15. 15 Cf. Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru, supra note 10, Considering para. 13. 16 Cf. Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru, supra note 10, Considering para. 13. 17 Cf. Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru, supra note 10, Considering para. 17. 18 Cf. Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru, supra note 10, Considering para. 14. 19 Cf. Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru, supra note 10, Considering para. 19. 5