19 Commission alleged that the State is responsible for the violation of Article 2 of the Convention also in relation to section 26 of the Constitution of Barbados, which immunizes pre-constitutional laws from constitutional challenge, even if they allegedly violate fundamental rights. 67. The representatives also alleged that the State is responsible for a violation of Article 2 of the Convention, as it has failed to take any steps to bring section 2 of the Offences Against the Person Act into conformity with that instrument. Furthermore, the representatives alleged that the Barbadian Constitution immunizes any law that is deemed to be “an existing law” by section 26 of the Constitution from challenge on grounds of incompatibility with fundamental rights. Particularly, the representatives alleged that, since the Offences Against the Person Act is such a law, the mandatory death penalty cannot be challenged domestically on grounds of incompatibility with fundamental human rights, and therefore, this Court is the only forum that can address this issue. 68. The State alleged that a violation of Article 2 could only be found where there is a violation of some other right recognized in the Convention, and therefore, since the State alleges it has not incurred in any violation of the Convention, no violation of Article 2 could be found in the present case. Furthermore, the State submitted that its laws fully conform to the requirements of the Convention. Specifically, the State alleged that Section 26 does not, in and of itself, amount to a violation of Article 2 of the Convention as it does not prevent the amendment, repeal, or substitution of existing laws by Parliament, which is free to change any law. Finally, the State asserted that “no constitutional right can ever be violated by an existing law [such as Section 2 of the Offences Against the Person Act, as] all existing laws are ipso facto constitutional”. 69. The Court has previously held that a State Party to the Convention “must adopt all measures so that the provisions of the Convention are effectively fulfilled in its domestic legal system, as Article 2 of the Convention requires”.64 The Court has also stated that, in complying with the general obligation to respect and guarantee rights, the States are obliged to “take affirmative action, avoid taking measures that restrict or infringe a fundamental right, and eliminate measures and practices that restrict or violate a fundamental right.”65 That is, pursuant to Article 2 of the American Convention, States not only have an affirmative obligation to adopt the legislative measures necessary to guarantee the exercise of the rights recognized in the Convention, they must also refrain both from promulgating laws that disregard or impede the free exercise of these rights, and from suppressing or modifying the existing laws protecting them.66 These obligations derive from and are a natural consequence of the State’s ratification of the American Convention. 70. In light of the above, the Court will proceed to address the parties’ arguments in the following order: firstly, with regard to section 2 of the Offences Against the Person Act, and secondly, with regard to Section 26 of the Barbados’ Constitution. 64 Cf. Case of the “Last Temptation of Christ” (Olmedo-Bustos et al). Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of February 5, 2001. Series C No. 73, para. 87; Case of Zambrano Vélez et al. V. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment July 4, 2007. Series C No. 166, para. 56, and Case of La Cantuta V. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 29, 2006. Series C No. 162, para. 171. 65 Cf. Juridical Condition and Rights of the Undocumented Migrants. Advisory Opinion OC-18/03 of September 17, 2003. Series A No. 18, para. 81. 66 Cf. Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. V. Perú. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 30, 1999. Series C No. 52, para. 207; Case of Zambrano Vélez et al., supra note 64, para. 57, and Case of La Cantuta, supra note 64, para. 172.