33 The States Parties to this Convention undertake to respect the rights and freedoms recognized herein and to ensure to all persons subject to their jurisdiction the free and full exercise of those rights and freedoms, without any discrimination for reasons of race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, economic status, birth, or any other social condition. 84. While Article 2 of the Convention establishes that: Where the exercise of any of the rights or freedoms referred to in Article 1 is not already ensured by legislative or other provisions, the States Parties undertake to adopt, in accordance with their constitutional processes and the provisions of this Convention, such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to give effect to those rights or freedoms. 85. The Court has indicated that the general obligations of the State, established in Article 2 of the Convention, include the adoption of measures to suppress laws and practices of any kind that imply a violation of the guarantees established in the Convention, and also the adoption of laws and the implementation of practices leading to the effective observance of the said guarantees.20 86. The Court observes that, in accordance with the findings of this judgment, the State violated Article 13 of the American Convention to the detriment of Juan Pablo Olmedo Bustos, Ciro Colombara López, Claudio Márquez Vidal, Alex Muñoz Wilson, Matías Insunza Tagle and Hernán Aguirre Fuentes, because it has failed to comply with the general obligation to respect the rights and freedoms recognized in the Convention and to guarantee their free and full exercise, as established in its Article 1(1). 87. In international law, customary law establishes that a State which has ratified a human rights treaty must introduce the necessary modifications to its domestic law to ensure the proper compliance with the obligations it has assumed. This law is universally accepted, and is supported by jurisprudence.21 The American Convention establishes the general obligation of each State Party to adapt its domestic law to the provisions of this Convention, in order to guarantee the rights that it embodies. This general obligation of the State Party implies that the measures of domestic law must be effective (the principle of effet utile). This means that the State must adopt all measures so that the provisions of the Convention are effectively fulfilled in its domestic legal system, as Article 2 of the Convention requires. Such measures are only effective when the State adjusts its actions to the Convention’s rules on protection. 88. In this case, by maintaining cinematographic censorship in the Chilean legal system (article 19(12) of the Constitution and Decree Law 679), the State is failing to comply with the obligation to adapt its domestic law to the Convention in order to make effective the rights embodied in it, as established in Articles 2 and 1(1) of the Convention. 89. This Court recalls that on January 20, 1997, the Court of Appeal of Santiago delivered a judgment in this case, which was confirmed by the Supreme Court of Justice of Chile on April 19, 1997. Because it did not agree with the grounds for 20 21 cf. Durand and Ugarte case. Judgment of August 16, 2000. Series C. No. 68, para. 137. cf. “principe allant de soi”; Echange des populations grecques et turques, advisory opinion 1925, C.P.J.I., series B, no. 10, p. 20; and Durand and Ugarte case, supra note 20, para. 136.