148. The Court has already referred to States’ general obligation to adjust their domestic laws to the provisions of the American Convention, under the terms of Article 2 of the American Convention.159 This same obligation is applicable to the States adhering to the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons, as that obligation derives from a customary norm according to which a State that has signed an international convention must introduce the necessary modifications to its domestic laws to ensure compliance with the obligations it assumes. 160 149. On October 31, 1995, Argentina ratified the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons. The Convention entered into force for that State on February 28, 1996, the date on which it deposited the ratification instrument with the Secretariat of the Organization of American States. Therefore, since that moment Argentina has had a specific obligation to define that crime in keeping with Article III of that instrument.161 However, in this case, the Inter-American Commission did not allege that the failure to codify the crime of enforced disappearance of persons has constituted an impediment or obstacle to the investigation into what happened to Mr. Torres. Therefore, the Court cannot rule abstractly on this point. 150. Nevertheless, the Tribunal highlights that during the public hearing, the State indicated that "Law 26.679 had just been approved. This law modifies the Criminal Code of the Nation and includes the codification" of the crime of enforced disappearance of persons. At the President’s request for evidence to facilitate adjudication (supra para. 13), the State submitted a copy of the aforementioned law to the Court, in which it can be noted that the law was passed on April 13, 2011, and promulgated on May 5, 2011. 162 Likewise, the Court highlights, as already indicated in this Ruling (supra para. 127), that the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation of Argentina ordered, among other things, that the investigation into what happened to Mr. Torres be carried out in keeping with the provisions of the Convention on Forced Disappearance. (supra para. 3). 151. The Commission also requested that the Court to declare a violation of Article 2 of the American Convention, in relation to Articles 3, 4, 5, 7, 8(1) and 25 of the American Convention. However, it did not present arguments relating Article 2 with these Articles. For this reason, the Tribunal will not rule on this request. XII OBLIGATION TO RESPECT RIGHTS A. 159 Arguments of the parties. Article 2 of the Convention establishes the following: 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. 160 Cf. Case of Garrido and Baigorria V. Argentina. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 27, 1998. Series C No. 39, para. 68; Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña V. Bolivia, supra note 14, para. 193, and Case of Vélez Loor V. Panamá, supra note 9, para. 290. 161 This provision establishes that States “undertake to adopt, in accordance with their constitutional procedures, the legislative measures that may be needed to define the forced disappearance of persons as an offense and to impose[...].” Likewise, in accordance with article I.d) of this instrument, States Parties commit to “tak[ing] legislative, administrative, judicial, and any other measures necessary to comply with the commitments undertaken in this Convention.” 162 Cf. Law 26.679 sanctioned by Argentinian Congress on April 13, 2011 (case file of annexes to the final written arguments of the State, folio 25360). 46