85 286. However, the Tribunal considers it pertinent to recall upon the State that it must prevent further human rights violations like the ones committed and to that end, it must adopt all the legal, administrative, and other measures necessary to ensure that similar facts are never repeated again, in compliance with its duty to prevent and guarantee the fundamental rights enshrined in the American Convention. Furthermore, it must adopt “the necessary legislative or any other measures to uphold” the rights recognized in the American Convention,311 in the understanding that the obligation the State has to adapt its domestic legislation to the provisions in the Convention is not limited to the wording of the Constitution or laws, but must rather permeate all the legal provisions of a statutory or regulatory nature and translate into the effective enforcement, in practice, of the human rights protection standards applicable to migrants. In particular, in relation to the notification to the arrested aliens of their right to consular assistance, as well as to ensure the direct judicial control before a competent court or tribunal that may decide on the lawfulness of the arrest or detention. 287. Moreover, it is worth emphasizing that when a State has ratified an international treaty such as the American Convention, the authorities that perform judicial duties are also subject to it; this obliges them to ensure that the effect utile of the Convention is not reduced or annulled by the application of laws contrary to its provisions, object, and purpose. In other words, the organs of any of the branches whose authorities perform judicial duties should exercise not only a control of constitutionality, but also of “conventionality” ex officio between the domestic norms and the American Convention, evidently in the context of their respective spheres of competence and the corresponding procedural regulations.312 288. Consequently, the Court recalls that the State is obliged to adopt all necessary measures to ensure that the process of application of its provisions related to immigration conforms to the American Convention. e) Adequate codification of the crime of torture 289. The Commission did not present any claim in respect to this measure. The representatives, moreover, pointed out that, so far, the crime of torture has not been adequately classified. Consequently, they requested the Court to order the Panamanian State to modify its legislation, “so as to classify the crime of torture, pursuant to the terms ordered in its judgment of the case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panama and according to the provisions of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture.” The State pointed out that there is a preliminary draft of a bill for the complete classification of the crime of torture, together with the precedents of its preparation. 290. The Court has already made reference to the general obligation of States to adapt their domestic law to the norms of the American Convention (supra para. 194). This is also applicable when dealing with the adherence to the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, since it derives from the rule of customary law according to which a State, who has entered into an international agreement, must include, within its domestic law, the necessary modifications to ensure the compliance with the obligations undertaken. 291. In the Judgment of the case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panama, the Tribunal had already declared the non-compliance with the State’s obligations and had ordered the corresponding reparation under the following terms: 311 Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.), supra note 48, para. 203; Case of Salvador Chiriboga, supra note 202, para. 122, and Case of Zambrano Vélez et al., supra note 200, para. 153. 312 Cf. Case of Almonacid Arellano, supra note 48, para. 124; Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña, supra note 28, para. 202, and Case of Rosendo Cantú et al., supra note 27, para. 219.