this Court. 312 In this regard, the Court emphasizes that compliance with these standards is required in the investigation of all human rights violations within the framework of the ordinary criminal jurisdiction, and therefore the scope of its application cannot be limited to specific violations, such as torture, forced disappearance or rape. The Court recalls that Article 2 of the American Convention establishes the general obligation of every State Party to adapt its domestic laws to the Convention’s provisions, so as to guarantee the rights protected therein, which means that the provisions of domestic law must be effective (principle of effet utile). 313 Consequently, the Court concludes that the State failed to comply with its obligation under Article 2, in relation to Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention, by extending the jurisdiction of the military courts to crimes that are not strictly related to military discipline or to legal interests in the military sphere. 207. Finally, regarding the legal definition of the crime of torture at the federal level, the representatives indicated that Article 3 of the Mexican Federal Law to Prevent and Punish Torture restricts the grounds for administering torture as follows: “to obtain, from the tortured individual or a third party, information or a confession, or to punish him for an action he has committed or is suspected of having committed, or coerce him to behave or stop behaving in a certain way,” which does not comply with the definition contained in Article 2 of the American Convention and Articles 1 and 6 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture. Similarly, they emphasized that the Criminal Code of the State of Guerrero has no criminal definition for the crime of torture. For its part, the State indicated that both the Convention and the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture “establish a general obligation of the State to define the crime of torture, but not the obligation to stipulate a definition literally based on the terms of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture.” In addition, the Mexican State argued that, according to Article 3 of the Federal Law to Prevent and Punish Torture, “the crime of torture is regulated in all federal entities, both in criminal codes and special laws.” In this regard, the Court notes that the representatives put forward this argument concerning the violation of Article 2 of the American Convention without stating the reasons why the above had an effect on the instant case. Therefore, as the Court has stated on previous occasions, the Court cannot review laws in abstract that were not applied or did not have effects on the specific case. 314 312 Cf. Case of Durand and Ugarte v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of August 16, 2000. Series C N°. 68, para. 117; Case of Fernández Ortega et al. v. Mexico, supra note 39, para. 179; and Case of Rosendo Cantú et al. v. Mexico, supra note 30, para. 163. 313 Cf. Case of Garrido and Baigorria v. Argentina. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 27, 1998. Series C N. 39, para. 68; Case of Fernández Ortega et al. v. Mexico, supra note 39, para. 179; and Case of Rosendo Cantú et al. v. Mexico, supra note 30, para. 163. 314 Case of Genie Lacayo v. Nicaragua. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of January 27, 1995. Series C No. 21, para. 50; Case of Usón Ramírez v. Venezuela, supra note 99, para. 154 and Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia, supra note 27, para. 51. 78