65 finds that this procedure was clearly ineffective to address the claims by the members of the Yakye Axa Indigenous Community to the land they consider their traditional, ancestral habitat. * * * 99. The Court has said that Article 25 of the Convention is closely linked to the general obligation set forth in Article 1(1) of that same Convention, which give the States Party the obligation to respect rights under domestic law, entailing the States’ responsibility to design and legally establish an effective recourse, as well as to ensure due application of said recourse by its judicial authorities.182 100. Article 2 of the American Convention places the States Party under the obligation to establish, in accordance with their Constitutional procedures and the provisions of this Convention, such legislative or other measures as may be necessary for effective exercise of the rights and freedoms protected by this same Convention. Therefore, it is necessary to reaffirm that the obligation to adapt domestic legislation is, by its very nature, one that must be reflected in actual results.183 101. The Court has stated before that this provision places the States Party under the general obligation to adjust their domestic legislation to the standards of the Convention itself, to thus ensure the rights embodied in the Convention. Domestic legal provisions for this purpose must be effective (principle of the effet utile), and this means that the State must take such measures as may be necessary to actually comply with the provisions of the Convention. 102. Pursuant to Article 2 of the Convention it is necessary to establish appropriate procedures in the framework of the domestic legal system to process the land claims of the indigenous peoples involved. The States must establish said procedures to resolve those claims in such a manner that these peoples have a real opportunity to recover their lands. For this, the general obligation to respect rights set forth in Article 1(1) of said treaty places the States under the obligation to ensure that said procedures are accessible and simple and that the bodies in charge of them have the necessary technical and material conditions to provide a timely response to the requests made in the framework of said procedures. 103. In the instant case, Paraguay has not taken appropriate domestic legal steps necessary to ensure an effective procedure to offer a definitive solution to the claim made by the members of the Yakye Axa Community, under the terms set forth in the previous paragraph. 104. Based on all the above, the Court deems that the legal procedure for the land claim made by the members of the Yakye Axa Community disregarded the principle 182 See Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community, supra note 176, para. 135; Case of Ivcher Bronstein, supra note 176, para. 135, and Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.). Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C No. 63, para. 237. 183 See Case of Caesar, supra note 2, para. 93.