222. The representatives held that Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel “are innocent” of the charges for which they were convicted. Therefore, they asked the Court to order the Mexican State “to take all necessary measures to immediately remove the names of Messrs. Montiel and Cabrera from any criminal records as well as to permanently eliminate any criminal record related to the facts reported in this case.” The State pointed out that it was not appropriate to eliminate the criminal record of the petitioners in this case, reiterating that no violations of the American Convention have been committed and that their release was due to “humane considerations and not to procedural errors.” 223. This Court has pointed out in other cases that it does not have competence to establish the criminal liability of individuals, and that any decision on the guilt or innocence of persons is a matter for the domestic criminal courts. 331 In light of the foregoing, and based on the violations declared in this Judgment, this Court considers that it is not possible to order a measure of reparation under the terms requested. C.3 Guarantees of Non-Repetition i) Adapting domestic law to international standards of justice 224. The Commission asked the Court to order Mexico to limit the scope of its military jurisdiction. The representatives requested that “the State […]be required to amend Article 57 of the Code of Military Justice, in order to establish, in a clear, precise and unambiguous manner, that military justice must abstain from considering any human rights violations allegedly committed by members of the Mexican armed forces, whether on active duty or not.” The representatives also called for the establishment of an “effective remedy to challenge the decision to transfer proceedings to the military jurisdiction.” Finally, based on the State’s information regarding a proposal to amend Article 57 of the Code of Military Justice, in compliance with the Court’s Judgment in the case of Radilla Pacheco, the representatives pointed out that “the information issued by the Presidency suggests that the proposed amendment [...] will not comply with [the terms established in said Judgment]” and that, in any case, “the amendment […] has not been adopted.” 225. In its case law, this Court has acknowledged that domestic authorities are bound to respect the rule of law, and therefore, they are required to apply the provisions in force within the legal system. 332 But when a State has ratified an international treaty such as the American Convention, all its institutions, including its judges, are also bound by such agreements, which requires them to ensure that all the effects of the provisions embodied in the Convention are not impaired by the enforcement of laws that are contrary to its purpose and end. The Judiciary, at all levels, must exercise ex officio a form of “conventionality control” between domestic legal provisions and the American Convention, obviously within the framework of their respective competences and the corresponding procedural regulations. In this task, the Judiciary must take into account not only the treaty 331 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra note 25, para. 134, Case of Lori Berenson Mejía v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2004. Series C N° 119, para. 92; Case of Barreto Leiva v. Venezuela, supra note 100, para. 24 332 Cf. Case of Almonacid Arellano et al. v. Chile. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 154, para. 124; Case of Rosendo Cantú et al. v. Mexico, supra note 30, para. 219; and Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña v. Bolivia, supra note 30, para. 202. 83