Chapter 3 • The Major Regional Human Rights Instruments and the Mechanisms for Their Implementation Lastly, in 1990 the General Assembly also adopted the Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights to Abolish the Death Penalty, which entered into force on 28 August 1991.12 The States parties to this Protocol “shall not apply the death penalty in their territory to any person subject to their jurisdiction” (art. 1). No reservations may be made to this Protocol, although States parties may declare at the time of ratification or accession “that they reserve the right to apply the death penalty in wartime in accordance with international law, for extremely serious crimes of a military nature” (art. 2(1)). As of 9 April 2002 this Protocol had 8 States parties.13 3.1.1 The undertakings of the States parties The States parties to the American Convention on Human Rights “undertake to respect the rights and freedoms recognized [therein] and to ensure to all persons subject to their jurisdiction the free and full exercise of those rights and freedoms, without any discrimination” on certain cited grounds (art. 1). These undertakings have been interpreted by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in particular in the case of Velásquez, which concerned the disappearance and likely death of Mr. Velásquez. In the view of the Court the obligation to respect the rights and freedoms recognized in the Convention implies that “the exercise of public authority has certain limits which derive from the fact that human rights are inherent attributes of human dignity and are, therefore, superior to the power of the State”.14 The obligation to “ensure ... the free and full exercise of those rights and freedoms” thus “implies the duty of the States Parties to organize the governmental apparatus and, in general, all the structures through which public power is exercised, so that they are capable of juridically ensuring the free and full enjoyment of human rights. As a consequence of this obligation, the States must prevent, investigate and punish any violation of the rights recognized by the Convention and, moreover, if possible attempt to restore the right violated and provide compensation as warranted for damages resulting from the violation”.15 The Court added, however, that “the obligation to ensure the free and full exercise of human rights is not fulfilled by the existence of a legal system designed to make it possible to comply with this obligation — it also requires the Government to conduct itself so as to effectively ensure the free and full exercise of human rights”.16 12 OAS Treaty Series, No. 73. 13 See http://www.oas.org/juridico/english/Sigs/a-53.html. 14 I-A Court HR, Velásquez Rodríguez Case, judgment of July 29, 1988, Series C, No. 4, p. 151, para. 165. 15 Ibid., p. 152, para. 166; emphasis added. 16 Ibid., para. 167. Human Rights in the Administration of Justice: A Manual on Human Rights for Judges, Prosecutors and Lawyers 81