B.3 Teleological Interpretation 28. It is useful to recall that a teleological interpretation seeks to analyze the purpose of a particular norm. To this end, it is pertinent to examine the object and purpose of the treaty itself and, if applicable, to analyze the purpose of the regional protection system.25 As the Court has indicated, the object and purpose of the American Convention is “the protection of the fundamental rights of human beings.” Likewise, the American Convention expressly contemplates certain interpretation guidelines set forth in Article 29,26 including the pro personae principle. 29. However, with regard to an interpretation based on the object and purpose of the American Convention, and the pro personae principle, it is important to emphasize that in its interpretative work, the Court should not consider this approach in isolation, but in conjunction with the other methods of interpretation. Thus, although the object and purpose of the American Convention is “the protection of the fundamental rights of human beings,” that object is to be understood as being within the limits set by the treaty itself and in accordance with the guarantees recognized therein.27 30. The pro personae principle, in turn, implies that in interpreting a treaty provision, precedence should be given to applying the rule that gives the greatest protection to the rights of the individual and/or interpreting those rights in a broad manner that favors him or her. However, the application of this principle cannot displace the use of other interpretation methods, nor can it disregard their results, since all of these must be understood as a whole. Otherwise, the unrestricted application of the pro personae principle would lead to the invalidation of the interpreter's actions.28 31. From the aforementioned interpretation methods it is clear that the Convention does not grant the organs of the inter-American system the jurisdiction to directly protect ESCER in their individual dimension; thus, neither the object and purpose of the Convention nor the pro personae principle may be used to arrive at a different result. These cannot be used to validate an interpretative option that is not apparent from the rule itself and that, on the contrary, implies a modification thereof. In this case we are not contemplating a more protective or guarantee-oriented interpretation of the rule that allows for the application of the pro personae principle, since this must be applied when the Court is confronted with two possible valid and true interpretations of a conventional precept. Indeed, the direct justiciability of ESCER as individual rights, based on Article 26 of the Convention, is not a valid interpretation, given that, what is being attempted is to infer Cf. Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 16, 2009. Series C No. 205, para. 59, and Case of Cuscul Pivaral et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 23, 2018. Series C No. 359, para. 90. 25 Article 29 of the American Convention establishes the following: “Standards of Interpretation: No provision of this Convention shall be interpreted as: a) permitting any State Party, group, or person to suppress the enjoyment or exercise of the rights and freedoms recognized in this Convention or to restrict them to a greater extent than is provided for herein; b) restricting the enjoyment or exercise of any right or freedom recognized by virtue of the laws of any State Party or by virtue of another convention to which one of the said States is a party; c) precluding other rights or guarantees that are inherent in the human personality or derived from representative democracy as a form of government; and, d) excluding or limiting the effect that the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man and other international acts of the same nature may have.” 26 Cf. The Institution of Asylum and its Recognition as a Human Right in the Inter-American System of Protection (Interpretation and Scope of Articles 5, 22(7) and 22(8), in relation to Article 1(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-25/18 of May 30, 2018. Series A No. 25, para. 148. 27 Cf. The Institution of Asylum and its Recognition as a Human Right in the Inter-American System of Protection (Interpretation and Scope of Articles 5, 22(7) and 22(8), in relation to Article 1(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-25/18 of May 30, 2018. Series A No. 25, para. 149. 28