48 109. In the light of the abovementioned, and taking into account the admission by the State, the Court deems that the State violated Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention, in relation with Article 1(1) of same, to the detriment of the next of kin of the victims identified on paragraph 60(26) of this Judgment. X NON-COMPLIANCE WITH ARTICLE 2 (DOMESTIC LEGAL EFFECTS) OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION 110. Article 2 of the Convention sets forth: [w]here 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. 111. As reported by the Commission and the representatives, and accepted by the State, Venezuela did not adapt its domestic legislation to the American Convention, since it did not overruled the provisions that granted military courts jurisdiction to investigate the violations of human rights, and it has not developed policies intended to change the penitentiary system so as to make it more professional, with the purpose of guaranteing safety withing said premises. 112. In this aspect, the Court takes into account and appreciates that the State has made efforts to cure such omission. Particularly, the State pointed out that at the present time, [p]ublic [p]olicies are being developed in order to improve prison conditions, and it is worth pointing out the Executive Order on Penitentiary System Emergency, the Penitentiary System Humanization Programme and the promotion and dissemination through workshops, of the [h]uman [r]ights of persons deprived of liberty. […| [A]t the present time, upon the entry into force of the Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela of 1999, […] violations of human rights and crimes against humanity […] shall be investigated and tried by the ordinary courts, which eliminates any possibility that crimes of such kind may be tried by special courts, thus proving that the legislative change requested by the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights was taken into account. 113. However, this Court points out that the issues of the instant case occurred before the efforts made by the State, and therefore it considers that the State failed in complying with the duty imposed by Article 2 of the American Convention. XI REPARATIONS (APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 63(1) OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION) 114. In the instant case, the State admitted all the claims on reparations asserted by the Commission and the representatives. In view of the foregoing, the Court finds it unnecessary to summarize the claims of the parties and directly proceeds to apply them and rule on the measures aimed at redressing the damage caused. Duty to make reparations