particular circumstances of the case must be examined and whether the obligation to guarantee rights has been met. 39 45. At the same time, the Court has pointed out that Article 2 of the Convention establishes the general duty of the States Parties to adapt their domestic laws to the provisions of the Convention in order to guarantee the rights enshrined therein. This duty implies the adoption of two kinds of measures: on the one hand, the elimination of rules and practices that in any way violate the guarantees provided for under the Convention; on the other hand, the promulgation of norms and the development of practices conducive to the effective observance of those guarantees. 40 Indeed, with regard to the adoption of such measures, this Court has recognized that all the authorities of States Parties to the Convention have an obligation to exercise a control of conventionality, so that the interpretation and application of national law is consistent with their international human rights obligations. 41 46. The Court recalls that, within the framework of its competencies, it is not for the Court to determine the specific responsibility of individuals, but rather to establish whether States are responsible for the violation of the human rights recognized in the Convention. 42 In this regard, the Court has ruled on the State’s duty to regulate, supervise and oversee the practice of dangerous activities by private companies that involve significant risks to the life and integrity of persons under their jurisdiction. 43 Similarly, the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights has indicated that States Parties must effectively prevent any impairment of the economic, social and cultural rights in the context of business activities, and must therefore adopt legislative, administrative and educational measures to ensure their effective protection. 44 47. Regarding the obligations of States with respect to business activities, the Court considers it pertinent to emphasize that the Human Rights Council has adopted the “Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: Implementing the United Nations ‘Protect, Respect and Remedy’ Framework” (hereinafter “Guiding Principles”). 45 In particular, the Court highlights the three pillars of the Guiding Principles, together with the foundational principles derived from these pillars, which are fundamental in determining the scope of the human rights obligations of States and business enterprises: 46 Cf. Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia. Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C No. 140, para. 123, and Case of the Workers of the Fireworks Factory in Santo Antônio de Jesus v. Brazil, supra, para. 117. 39 Cf. Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 30, 1999. Series C No. 52, para. 207, and Advisory Opinion OC-27/21, supra, para. 109. 40 Cf. Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 23, 2009. Series C No. 209, para. 340, and Advisory Opinion OC-27/21, supra, para. 109. 41 Mutatis mutandis, Case of Suárez Rosero v. Ecuador. Merits. Judgment of November 12, 1997. Series C No. 35, para. 37, and Case of Mota Abarullo et al. v. Venezuela. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 18, 2020. Series C No. 417, para. 111. 42 43 Cf. Case of the Workers of the Fireworks Factory in Santo Antônio de Jesus v. Brazil, supra, para. 118. Cf. Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. General Comment No. 24 on State obligations under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, in the context of business activities, E/C.12/GC/24, August 10, 2017, para. 14. 44 45 Cf. Human Rights Council. Human Rights and Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises. A/HRC/17/31, July 6, 2011, Resolution 1. 46 Cf. Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR). Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: Implementing the United Nations “Protect, Respect and Remedy” Framework, HR/PUB/11/04, 2011. 16