17 practice running counter to the Convention remains in the legal system41 and is therefore satisfied by modifying42, derogating, or otherwise annulling43 or amending44 such rules or practices, as appropriate45. 58. According to this interpretation framework, the remaining dispute must be considered within the first set of measures to be adopted in order to adjust the domestic rules to the Convention. That being said, the facts and the practices of the State must be analyzed as a whole in order to appreciate the compliance by the State of the general duty enshrined in Article 2, in conjunction with the other rules. 59. The Commission and the representatives alleged that the National Security Law, which would still be in force, is contrary to the American Convention, since Articles 145 and 147 of such law stipulate that during states of emergency, actions constituting the crimes set forth in the said Law as well as crimes punishable by imprisonment must be judged under the Military Criminal Code. Furthermore, the Commission added that “a rule of this nature, giving military courts full jurisdiction to try civilians for the crimes referred to, is incompatible with and in contravention of Article 27(2) of the American Convention, which states that there are some rights and freedoms that cannot be suspended under any circumstance, including ‘the judicial guarantees essential for the protection of such rights’". Therefore, according to the Commission, the said rule “undermines the right to a fair trial before an independent [and] impartial court”, as well as the right of the victims to access information regarding such proceedings. Moreover, the Commission argued that “on limiting the procedural guarantees to a special jurisdiction, the rights of the victims and their family members [have been] violated”, so that the State would not have taken the appropriate domestic legal measures to give effect to the rights of the family members. 60. Along the same line, the representatives added that as such, “the armed forces play a dual role”, since “when [their] members argue, as in the instant case, that a confrontation took place […] it is not even possible to file a claim in the said courts of exception”. In its final written arguments, the representatives requested the Court to “accept the aknowledgement of liability made by the State for the failure to fulfill the obligation imposed by Article 2 […] of the American Convention, for not repealing provisions in its legislation which gives jurisdiction to investigate human rights violation to police or military courts and for not amending the legislation as to the application of the [National] Security Law during the intervention of the Armed Forces in the domestic order”. 61. During the public hearing, the State indicated that “in 1993, when these facts occurred, another Constitution was in force in Ecuador; [in] 1998, [this Constitution] changed[; the Constitution in force] in 1993 specifically provided for the application of the National Security Law’s rules during states of emergency, a situation which […] was reject[ed] by the constituents in 98; there no longer exist any references to this Law in the current Ecuadorian Constitution, at least in the application of the state of emergency”. Furthermore, the State alleged that Article 191 of the Constitution which entered into force in 1998 established the “jurisdictional unity” in Ecuador. On the other hand, in its final arguments, the State declared that “the Supreme Court of Justice can 41 Cf. Case of “The Last Temptation of Christ” (Olmedo-Bustos et al.), supra note 38, para. 88. See also Case of La Cantuta, supra note 7, para. 172, 42 Cf. Case of Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. Judgment of June 21, 2002. Series C No. 94, paras. 113 and 212. See also Case of Fermín Ramírez. Judgment of June 20, 2005. Series C No. 126, paras. 97 and 130. 43 Cf. Case of Caesar. Judgment of March 11, 2005. Series C No. 123, paras. 94 and 132. See also Case of Yatama. Judgment of June 23, 2005. Series C No. 127, para. 254. 44 Cf. Case of Raxcacó-Reyes. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 133, paras. 87 and 125. 45 Cf. Case of La Cantuta, supra note 7, para. 172,