403. Lastly, regarding the criminal proceedings opened in 2001 before the Second Jurisdiction of the Marabá Federal Justice Department, in the state of Pará, the Court underlines that the State was unable to provide copies of the case file, so that it has no evidence to determine whether these criminal proceedings constituted an effective remedy to examine the responsibilities for the facts of the case, and determine a punishment and reparation. 404. Based on all the above, the Court notes that none of the proceedings on which it received information determined any type of responsibility for the conducts denounced, and nor were they a means of obtaining reparation for the harm done to the victims, because none of the proceedings examined the merits of each issue. 405. The foregoing resulted in a denial of justice to the detriment of the victims, because it was not possible to ensure them judicial protection in this case, either substantively or legally. The State failed to guarantee the victims an effective remedy provided by the competent authorities that would protect their human rights against the acts that violated such rights. 406. In conclusion, despite the extreme gravity of the facts denounced, the proceedings that were conducted: (i) did not analyze the merits of the matter submitted; (ii) did not determine any responsibilities or adequately punish those responsible for the facts; (iii) did not provide a mechanism of reparation for the victims, and (iv) did not have the effect of preventing a continuation of the violation of the victims’ rights. 407. In this regard, the Court points out that, given the presence of victims who were minors and the State’s awareness of this situation, its responsibility to provide a simple and effective remedy to protect their rights was even greater. The Court has already indicated that cases in which the victims of human rights violations are children are particularly serious, because children are holders of the rights established in the American Convention, and are also ensured the special measures of protection established in its Article 19 which must be determined in keeping with the particular circumstances of each specific case. 505 ii) The prescription of the proceedings and its compatibility with the obligations derived from international law 408. First, the Court recalls that it has determined that States have an obligation that is binding for all their powers and organs, whereby the latter are obliged to ensure ex officio that domestic laws are in accordance with the American Convention within their respective terms of reference and the corresponding procedural regulations.506 409. The Court has also determined that a State that has ratified an international treaty must incorporate into its domestic laws the changes required to ensure the implementation of the obligations it has assumed,507 and that this principle, which is reflected in Article 2 of the American Convention, establishes the general obligation of States Parties to adapt their Cf. Case of Fornerón and daughter v. Argentina. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of April 27, 2012. Series C No. 242, para. 44, and Case of the Campesina Community of Santa Bárbara, para. 491 . 505 Cf. Case of Almonacid Arellano et al. v. Chile. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 154, para. 124, and Case of the Punta Piedra Garífuna Community and its members v. Honduras. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 8, 2015. Series C No. 304, para. 346. 506 Cf. Case of Garrido and Baigorria. Reparations and costs. Judgment of August 27, 1998. Series C No. 39, para. 68, and Case of Maldonado Ordoñez, para. 111. 507 100