domestic laws to the provisions of this instrument in order to guarantee the rights it contains,508 which means that measures under domestic law must be effective (effet utile).509 410. Similarly, this Court has understood that this adaptation involves the adoption of measures of two types: (i) to eliminate norms and practices of any nature that entail a violation of the guarantees established in the Convention or that do not recognize the rights established therein or that impede their exercise, which means that the norm or practice that violates the Convention must be modified, derogated or annulled, or amended, as appropriate,510 and (ii) to enact laws and implement practices leading to the effective observance of the said guarantees.511 411. In this case, the Court underscores that the 1997 action against Raimundo Alves de Rocha and Antônio Alves Vieira concluded with the prescription of the punishment for the wrongful acts they were charged with: reduction to a condition similar to that of a slave (art. 149), violation of freedom of work (art. 197.1) and illegal recruitment of workers from one part of national territory to another (art. 207). 412. The Court has already indicated that, in criminal matters, prescription determines the extinguishment of the punishment owing to the passage of time and, in general, limits the State’s punitive power to prosecute the wrongful act and to punish its authors. This is a guarantee that should be duly observed by the judge in the case of anyone accused of a crime. However, prescription of the criminal proceedings is inadmissible when international law stipulates this. In this case, slavery is considered a crime under international law and its prohibition is of a jus cogens nature (supra para. 249). The Court has also indicated that it is not admissible to cite procedural mechanisms such as prescription or the statute of limitations to avoid the obligation to investigation and punish such crimes. 512 For the State to satisfy the obligation to adequately ensure different rights protected by the Convention, including the right of access to justice, it must comply with its duty to investigate, prosecute, punish, as appropriate, and make reparation for the facts. To achieve this objective, the State must observe due process and guarantee, among other matters, the principle of a reasonable time, effective remedies, and execution of the sentence. 513 413. The Court has already established that: (i) slavery and similar conditions constitute a crime under international law, and (ii) its prohibition by international law is a norm of jus cogens (supra para. 249). Therefore, the Court considers that the application of the statute of limitations to the crimes of subjection to slavery and similar conditions is incompatible with the Brazilian State’s obligation to adapt its domestic law to international standards. In this case, the prescription constituted an obstacle to the investigation of the facts, the determination and punishment of those responsible and reparation to the victims, despite the nature of the facts denounced as a crime under international law. iii) 508 Alleged discrimination in access to justice Cf. Case of Garrido and Baigorria. Reparations and costs, para. 68 and Case of Maldonado Ordoñez, para. 111. Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein. Jurisdiction. Judgment of September 24, 1999. Series C No. 54, para. 37, and Case of Maldonado Ordoñez, para. 111. 509 Cf. Case of Zambrano Vélez et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 166, para. 56, and Case of Maldonado Ordoñez, para. 111. 510 511 Cf. Case of Zambrano Vélez et al., para. 56, and Case of Maldonado Ordoñez, para. 111. Cf. Case of Barrios Altos v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of March 14, 2001. Series C No. 75, para. 41; Case of Almonacid Arellano, para. 110. 512 Case of the La Rochela Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C No. 163, para. 193. 513 101