the Code of Criminal Procedure; (vii) to ratify the Inter-American Convention against All Forms of Discrimination and Intolerance; (viii) to place informational leaflets or posters on the rights of persons deprived of liberty in police stations; (ix) to adapt the definition of torture in article 321 of the Criminal Code to the definition contained in Article 2(1) of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture and Article 1 of the United Nations Convention against Torture. 269. With regard to the first and second requests of the representatives, the Court considers that they have no causal nexus with the violations determined in this case and, therefore, does not find it necessary to order them. Regarding the request to amend the legal definition of torture, the Court notes that the legal definition of torture now in force was not applied to the facts of this case. The Court recalls that it is not its task to make a theoretical review of norms that were not applied or that had no impact on the violations declared in a specific case. Therefore, the Court considers that it is not appropriate to issue a ruling on this request when ordering reparations in this case.313 Nevertheless, the Court recalls that when a State is a party to an international treaty such as the American Convention, all its organs, including its judges, are subject to that treaty, and this obliges them to ensure that the effects of the provisions of the Convention are not impaired by the application of norms contrary to its object and purpose. Judges and organs involved in the administration of justice at all levels are obliged to exercise ex officio a “control of conventionality” between domestic laws and the American Convention, evidently within their respective terms of reference and the corresponding procedural rules. In this task, judges and organs involved in the administration of justice should take into account not only this treaty, but also its interpretation by the InterAmerican Court, ultimate interpreter of the American Convention.314 Therefore, when applying the new legal definition of torture,315 the domestic authorities are obliged to take into account the interpretation of the American Convention made by the Inter-American Court in this and other cases, including the possibility that torture may be committed for discriminatory purposes. 270. Regarding the other measures requested by the Commission and the representatives, the Court considers that the delivery of this judgment and the reparations ordered in this chapter are sufficient and appropriate to redress the violations suffered by the victim. Therefore, it does not find it necessary to order those additional measures, without prejudice to the State deciding to adopt or grant them in the domestic sphere. G. Costs and expenses Cf. Case of Genie Lacayo v. Nicaragua. Preliminary objections. Judgment of January 27, 1995. Series C No. 21, para. 50, and Case of López Lone et al. v. Honduras. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 5, 2015. Series C No. 302, para. 307. 313 Cf. Case of Almonacid Arellano et al. v. Chile. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 154, para. 124, and Case of Colindres Schonenberg v. El Salvador. Merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 129. 314 The Court notes that the new legal definition does not includes specific purposes. According to expert witness Víctor Manuel Cubas Villanueva, since “the new legislation does not specifically restrict the purposes of the crime of torture, […] the purposes of this offense could be interpreted broadly by the agents of justice” and in accordance with the State’s international obligations. The Court also notes that, in 2018, the Committee against Torture urged the State to modify this definition “so that it expressly covers acts of torture committed for such purposes as obtaining information or a confession from the victim or a third person, punishing the victim for an act that the victim or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing the victim or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind.” Cf. Affidavit of Victor Manuel Cubas Villanueva of August 12, 2019 (evidence file, folio 3488), and Committee against Torture, Concluding observations on the seventh periodic report of Peru, CAT/C/PER/CO/7, December 18, 2018, paras. 10 and 11. 315 69