82 288. With regard to the general obligation of adjusting the domestic legislation to the Convention, the Court has stated on several opportunities that “[i]n international law, a rule of customary law indicates that a State that has signed an international agreement, should introduce in its domestic legislation the modifications necessary to guarantee the execution of the obligations assumed.”283 In the American Convention, this principle is enshrined in its Article 2, which establishes the general obligation of each of the State Parties to adjust its domestic legislation to its stipulations, in order to guarantee the rights acknowledged by it, which implies that the measures of domestic legislation must be effective (principle of effet utile).284 289. Therefore, the Tribunal considers that the State failed to comply with the obligation included in Article 2 of the American Convention, in connection with Articles 8 and 25 of the same, upon extending the competence of the military jurisdiction to crimes that do not have a strict connection with military discipline or with juridical rights characteristic of the military realm. B2. Effective recourse to challenge the military jurisdiction 290. Both the Commission and the representatives of the alleged victims argued that Article 25(1) of the Convention has also been infringed because the next of kin of Mr. Rosendo Radilla-Pacheco could not contest the forwarding of the case to military jurisdiction (supra paras. 266 through 267). 291. The Court has stated that Article 25(1) of the Convention contemplates the obligation of the States Parties to guarantee access, to all of the people under its jurisdiction, to an effective judicial recourse against acts that violate their fundamental rights.285 292. In this regard, it can be concluded from the facts of the present case that once the Second District Court decided to decline its competence in favor of the military jurisdiction, Mrs. Tita Radilla-Pacheco filed an appeal for protection to revoke that decision. However, this complaint was dismissed in first instance (supra para. 262) since based on Article 10 of the Law on the Appeal of Relief “[t]he injured party or victim of the crime, can only try appeals for guarantees when it refers to any act […] related directly and immediately with the reparation of the damage […].”286 Said decision also indicated that: [i]n the Mexican legal system, the proceedings of a criminal nature are carried out only between the defendant and the Public Prosecutors’ Office, bearer of the criminal action, who exercises the monopoly of the same and, therefore, is entitled to carry out the defenses during the proceeding of each and everyone of the acts that occur during the same and that affect its correct performance, [among] which […] there are procedural issues such as those that refer to the Tribunal before which the case shall be resolved based on jurisdiction, a matter that may be analyzed through the means of defense presented before the competent instances in terms of Article 367, fraction VIII of the Federal Code of Criminal Procedures; an appeal that […] can only 283 Cf. Case of Garrido and Baigorria v. Argentina. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 27, 1998. Series C No. 39, para. 68; Case of Zambrano Vélez et al. v. Ecuador, supra note 51, para. 55, and Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panama, supra note 24, para. 179. 284 Cf. Case of Garrido and Baigorria v. Argentina, supra note 283, para. 68; Case of Zambrano Vélez et al. v. Ecuador, supra note 51, para. 55, and Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panama, supra note 24, para. 179. 285 Cf. Case of Velásquez Roríguez v. Honduras, supra note 24, para. 91; Case of Acevedo Buendía et al. v. Peru, supra note 139, para. 69, and Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras, supra note 40, para. 110. 286 Cf. Judgment of the Sixth District Court in the State of Guerrero, of September 6, 2005, dossier PRAL. 854/2005 (dossier of appendixes to the brief of pleadings and motions, appendix F(3), folio 2033).