73 the obligation established in its Article 2 thereof, the State must also develop practices leading to the effective observance of the rights and freedoms embodied in the Convention. The existence of a norm does not, in and of itself, guarantee that its application will be adequate. It is necessary that the application of the norms or their interpretation, as jurisdictional practices and expressions of the State’s public order, must be adapted to the objective sought by Article 2 of the Convention. In practical terms, as the Court has already established, the interpretation of Article 13 of the Mexican Constitution must be coherent with the constitutional and the treaty-based principles of due process and access to justice contained in Article 8(1) of the American Convention and the pertinent provisions of the Mexican Constitution.276 219. In its jurisprudence, the Court has established its awareness that domestic authorities are subject to the rule of law, and consequently, that they are obliged to apply the provisions of the laws that are in force in the legal code.277 Nevertheless, when a State has ratified an international treaty such as the American Convention, all of its organs, including its judges, as part of the State apparatus, are also subject to such a treaty, and this obligates them to ensure that the effects of the provisions of the Convention are not diminished by the application of norms contrary to its object and purpose. The Judicial Branch must exercise control ex officio of the harmonization of the domestic norms with the American Convention, evidently within the framework of their respective jurisdictions and the corresponding procedural rules. In this task, the Judicial Branch should bear in mind not only the treaty, but also the corresponding interpretation made by the Inter-American Court, the definitive interpreter of the American Convention.278 220. Hence, the constitutional and legislative interpretations concerning the criteria for the personal and subject matter jurisdiction of the military jurisdiction in Mexico needs to be adapted to the principles established in the Court’s jurisprudence, which have been reiterated in the present case. This implies that, irrespective of the reforms to the law that the State may adopt (infra para. 222), in this case, it is incumbent on the judicial authorities, based on the control of the harmonization of domestic law with the Convention, to order immediately and ex officio that the facts be heard by the ordinary criminal justice system. 221. Moreover, the Court recalls that it has already found, in the case of Radilla Pacheco, that it is not necessary to order the amendment of the normative content that regulates Article 13 of the Political Constitution of the United Mexican States. 222. Furthermore, in Chapter IX of this Judgment, the Court has declared that Article 57 of the Code of Military Justice is incompatible with the American Convention (supra paras. 162 and 163). Consequently, the Court reiterates to the State its obligation to adopt, within a reasonable time, the legislative reforms applicable in order to harmonize the mentioned provision with the international standards in this regard and with the Convention, in keeping with that established in this Judgment. 223. Finally, pursuant to that established in Chapter IX of this Judgment, Mrs. Rosendo Cantú did not have an appropriate and effective remedy to contest the intervention of the military justice system (supra paras. 164 to 167). As a consequence, Mexico must adopt, also within a reasonable time, the relevant legislative reforms to 276 Cf. Case of Radilla Pacheco, supra note 36, para. 338 277 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; Case of La Cantúta v. Perú. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 29, 2006. Series C No. 162, para. 173, and Case of Radilla Pacheco, supra note 36, para. 339. 278 Cf. Case of Almonacid Arellano, supra note 282, para. 124; Case of Boyce et al. v. Barbados. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2007, Series C No. 169, para. 78, and Case of Radilla Pacheco, supra note 36, para. 339