26 D. The State’s obligation to adopt domestic legal provisions in favor of Oscar Alberto Mohamed 102. Article 2 of the American Convention states: Where the exercise of any of the rights or freedoms referred to in Article 1 is not already ensured by legislative or other provisions, the States Parties undertake to adopt, in accordance with their constitutional processes and the provisions of this Convention, such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to give effect to those rights or freedoms. 103. The Inter-American Court has stated that under the law of nations, a customary law prescribes that a State that has signed an international agreement must introduce into its domestic laws whatever changes are needed to ensure execution of the obligations it has undertaken. This principle is universally valid and has been characterized in case law as an evident principle.66 104. The Court has also said that this principle, reflected in Article 2 of the Convention, sets forth the general duty of each State Party to adjust its domestic law to the provisions of the Convention to guarantee the rights enshrined therein,67 which implies that the domestic legal measures must be effective (effet utile principle).68 105. As repeatedly established in the Court’s jurisprudence, Article 2 of the Convention fails to define which measures are appropriate to adjust the domestic law to the Convention; obviously, this is so because it depends on the nature of the rule requiring adjustments and on the circumstances of each specific situation. Therefore, the Court has interpreted that such adjustment implies adopting two sets of measures: (i) repealing rules and practices of any nature entailing violations of the guarantees provided for in the Convention or disregarding the rights enshrined therein or impeding the exercise of such rights, and (ii) adopting rules and developing practices aimed at effectively ensuring the said guarantees.69 The Court has taken the view that the first set of duties is breached while the rule or practice running counter to the Convention remains in the legal system70 and is therefore satisfied by modifying,71 derogating, or otherwise annulling,72 or amending73 such rules or practices, as appropriate.74 66 I/A Court H. R., Case of Zambrano Vélez et al. Judgment of July 4, 2004. Series C No. 166, para. 55; Case of Garrido and Baigorria. Reparations (Art. 63.1 American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of August 27, 1998. Series C No. 39, para. 68. See also Case of La Cantuta. Judgment of November 29, 2006. Series C No. 162, para. 170, and Case of Almonacid Arellano et al. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 154, para. 117. 067 I/A Court H. R., Case of Zambrano Vélez et al. Judgment of July 4, 2004. Series C No. 166, para. 56; Case of La Cantuta. Judgment of November 29, 2006. Series C No. 162, para. 171; and Case of Almonacid Arellano et al. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 154, para. 117. 68 I/A Court H. R., Case of Zambrano Vélez et al. Judgment of July 4, 2004. Series C No. 166, para. 57; Case of La Cantuta. Judgment of November 29, 2006. Series C No. 162, para. 171; and Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute.” Judgment of September 2, 2004. Series C No. 112, para. 205. 69 I/A Court H. R., Case of Zambrano Vélez et al. Judgment of July 4, 2004. Series C No. 166, para.57; Case of La Cantuta. Judgment of November 29, 2006. Series C No. 162, para. 172, and Case of Almonacid Arellano et al. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 154, para. 118. 70 I/A Court H. R., Case of Zambrano Vélez et al. Judgment of July 4, 2004. Series C No. 166, para. 57; Case of “The Last Temptation of Christ” (Olmedo Bustos et al.). Judgment of February 5, 2001. Series C No. 73, para. 172. 71 I/A Court H. R., Case of Zambrano Vélez et al. Judgment of July 4, 2004. Series C No. 166, para. 57;