40 137. In this sense, in another case the Court stated that [t]he general duty of Article 2 of the American Convention implies the adoption of measures in two ways. On the one hand, derogation of rules and practices of any kind that imply the violation of guarantees in the Convention. On the other hand, the issuance of rules and the development of practices leading to an effective enforcement of said guarantees. 62 138. The Court warns that, based on this judgment, the State violated Articles 4(1), 7(1), 7(5), 7(6), 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention, to the detriment of Nolberto Durand Ugarte and Gabriel Pablo Ugarte Rivera; therefore, it has not fulfilled its general duty of respecting the rights and freedoms recognized therein and of ensuring its free and full exercise, as stipulated in Article 1(1) of the Convention. Also, in the present case Article 2 of the Convention was violated, because the State had not taken appropriate measures of its internal law which allow making effective the rights established on the said Convention. 139. As a consequence, the Court concludes that the State has failed to comply with the general obligations of Articles 1(1) and 2 of the American Convention on Human Rights. XVI ENFORCEMENT OF ARTICLE 63(1) 140. Regarding the implementation of Article 63(1) of the Convention, the Commission asked the Court to arrange for a) Peru to carry out an investigation to identify, judge, and punish the liable parties of the violations in this case; b) Peru to inform about the whereabouts of Nolberto Durand Ugarte and Gabriel Pablo Ugarte Rivera and to inform their relatives; c) Peru to properly compensate the relatives of Nolberto Durand Ugarte and Gabriel Pablo Ugarte Rivera, both financially and morally as a result of damages from the violations of rights recognized in the Conventions; and d) Peru to pay expenses incurred by the victims’ relatives and representatives because of their participation both before the Commission and the Court. Moreover, in its final allegations it asked for the compensation of expenses by the relatives and petitioners in the internal seat. 141. The State did not mention said requests before the Commission. 142. Article 63(1) of the American Convention states that If the Court finds that there has been a violation of a right or freedom protected by this Convention, the Court shall rule that the injured party be ensured the enjoyment of his right or freedom that was violated. It shall also rule, if appropriate, that the 62 Castillo Petruzzi et al Case, supra note 8, para. 207.