treaty, but also the interpretation of it made by the Inter-American Court, the ultimate interpreter of the American Convention.195 165. Thus, for example, the highest courts in the region have referred to the Convention and monitored compliance with it, taking into account interpretations made by the Inter-American Court. The Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of Costa Rica has indicated that: It should be noted that, if the Inter-American Court of Human Rights is the natural organ to interpret the American Convention on Human Rights […] the authority of its ruling when interpreting the Convention and judging domestic laws in light thereof, whether in an adversarial case or in a simple consultation, will have - in principle - the same weight as the law interpreted.196 166. For its part, the Constitutional Court of Bolivia has indicated that: The Pact of San Jose, Costa Rica, as a legal component of constitutionality is composed of three essential parts that are strictly interrelated: the first, comprising the preamble; the second, the dogma, and the third, the organization. Specifically, Chapter VIII of this instrument regulates the Inter-American C[ourt] of Human Rights. Consequently, following a “systemic” criterion of constitutional interpretation, it must be established that this organ and, consequently, the decisions it issues, also form part of this constitutionality. This is so for two specific juridical reasons, namely: (1) the purpose of the jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, and (2) the application of the legal doctrine of the effet utile of its judgments on human rights197 167. Also, the Supreme Court of Justice of the Dominican Republic has established that: Consequently, both the provisions of the American Convention on Human Rights and also their interpretation by the jurisdictional organs are binding for the Dominican State and, therefore, for the Judiciary. They were created as a means of protection, according to Article 33 of the Convention, which grants [the Court] authority to hear matters related to compliance with the commitments assumed by States parties.198 168. Furthermore, the Constitutional Court of Peru has stated that: The binding nature of the judgments of the [Inter-American] Court is not exhausted with their operative paragraphs (which evidently involve only the State that is a party to the proceedings); rather, it extends to the considerations or ratio decidendi, with the addition that, owing to the primacy of the [Fourth Final Transitory Provision (CDFT)] of the Constitution and article V of the Preliminary Chapter of the [Constitutional Procedural Code], in the said sphere the judgment is binding for all domestic public authorities, even in those cases in which the Peruvian State has not been a party to the proceedings. Indeed, the [Inter-American] Court’s capacity to interpret and apply the Convention, recognized in Article 62(3) thereof, added to the mandate of the CDFT of the Constitution, means that the interpretation made of the provisions of the Convention in any proceedings is binding for all domestic public authorities, including, of course, this court.199 195 Cf. Case of Almonacid Arellano et al. v. Chile, supra note 194, para. 124; Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña v. Bolivia, supra note 28, para. 202, and Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores v. Mexico, supra note 13, para. 225. 196 Cf. Judgment of May 9, 1995, handed down by the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of Costa Rica. Action on Unconstitutionality. Opinion 2313-95 (file 0421-S-90), Consideration VII. 197 Judgment handed down on May 10, 2010, by the Constitutional Court of Bolivia (file No. 200613381-27-RAC), section III.3 on “The Inter-American Human Rights System: considerations and effects of the judgments issued by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.” 198 Cf. Decision No. 1920-2003 delivered by the Supreme Court of Justice of the Dominican Republic on November 13, 2003. 199 Judgment handed down by the Constitutional Court of Peru on July 21, 2006 (file No. 27302006-PA/TC), twelfth consideration. 50