54 contemplated in said Convention. The fact that such provisions have been adopted pursuant to the domestic legislation or against it, “is irrelevant for this purpose.”148 To conclude, the Court, rather than the process of adoption and the authority issuing Decree Law No. 2.191, addresses the ratio legis: granting an amnesty for the serious criminal acts contrary to international law that were committed by the military regime. 121. Since it ratified the American Convention on August 21, 1990, the State has kept Decree Law No. 2.191 in force for sixteen years, overtly violating the obligations set forth in said Convention. The fact that such Decree Law has not been applied by the Chilean courts in several cases since 1998 is a significant advance, and the Court appreciates it, but it does not suffice to meet the requirements of Article 2 of the Convention in the instant case. Firstly because, as it has been stated in the preceding paragraphs, Article 2 imposes the legislative obligation to annul all legislation which is in violation of the Convention, and secondly, because the criterion of the domestic courts may change, and they may decide to reinstate the application of a provision which remains in force under the domestic legislation. 122. For such reasons, the Court determines that by formally keeping within its legislative corpus a Decree Law which is contrary to the wording and the spirit of the Convention, the State has not complied with the obligations imposed by Article 2 thereof. d) Enforcement of Decree Law No. 2.191 123. The above mentioned legislative obligation established by Article 2 of the Convention is also aimed at facilitating the work of the Judiciary so that the law enforcement authority may have a clear option in order to solve a particular case. However, when the Legislative Power fails to set aside and / or adopts laws which are contrary to the American Convention, the Judiciary is bound to honor the obligation to respect rights as stated in Article 1(1) of the said Convention, and consequently, it must refrain from enforcing any laws contrary to such Convention. The observance by State agents or officials of a law which violates the Convention gives rise to the international liability of such State, as contemplated in International Human Rights Law, in the sense that every State is internationally responsible for the acts or omissions of any of its powers or bodies for the violation of internationally protected rights, pursuant to Article 1(1) of the American Convention.149 124. The Court is aware that domestic judges and courts are bound to respect the rule of law, and therefore, they are bound to apply the provisions in force within the legal system. But when a State has ratified an international treaty such as the American Convention, its judges, as part of the State, are also bound by such Convention. This forces them to see that all the effects of the provisions embodied in the Convention are not adversely affected by the enforcement of laws which are contrary to its purpose and that have not had any legal effects since their inception. In other words, the Judiciary must exercise a sort of “conventionality control” 148 Cf. Certain Powers of the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights (arts. 41, 42, 44, 46, 47, 50 and 51 of the American Convention on Human Rights.). Advisory Opinion OC-13/93 of July 16, 1993. Series A No. 13, para. 26. 149 Cf. Case of Ximenes-Lopes, supra note 14, para. 172; and Case of Baldeón-García, supra note 14, para. 140.