application in the particular case by the judicial authorities of the State, who did not observe the mentioned standards on necessity. 92. Although the arguments of the representatives and that noted by the expert witnesses are persuasive arguments on the possible basis that the norm being challenged entail decisions against the right to freedom of expression, the Court considers that, in general, it allows a sufficient liberty to regulate their conduct and reasonably foresee the consequences of that violation. Thus, whether its application is in accordance with the Convention will depend on judicial interpretation in the case. 93. This Tribunal has established in its jurisprudence that it is aware that the domestic judges and tribunals are subject to the rule of law and that, therefore, they are compelled to apply the regulations in force within the legal system. But, once a State has ratified an international treaty such as the American Convention, its bodies and judges, are also subject to it, which compels them to make sure that the effects of the provisions of the Convention are not affected by the application or interpretation of laws contrary to its object and purpose. Judges and bodies related to the administration of justice at all levels shall exercise a “control of conformity with the Convention” ex officio, between domestic regulations and the American Convention, evidently under the framework of its respective competences and the corresponding procedural regulations. Within this task, the judges and bodies related to the administration of justice shall take into consideration not only the treaty but also the interpretation the Inter-American Court has made of it. 67 94. In this regard, the Court emphasizes the importance that the Argentine courts ensure that domestic proceedings wherein debates may arise regarding the right to freedom of expression, comply with the intent and purpose as well as other obligations under the Convention, so that in the analysis of cases such as this, they take into account the distinct threshold of protection for the right to private life of those who are civil servants, the existence of a public interest regarding the information, and the possibility that sanctions do not involve inhibition or self-censorship of those who exercise their right to free speech and citizenship, which unlawfully restricts and limits public debate on media pluralism that is necessary in a democratic society. 95. Moreover, the Court takes note of the changes that have occurred domestically in terms of freedom of expression, such as the legislative reforms arising from the case of Kimel, which amended the Argentine criminal code, eliminating the possibility that statements or opinions relating to matters of public interest be deemed libel or slander, the enactment of Law 26.522 of the Audiovisual Communication Services, as well as institutional and jurisprudential changes that occurred in the Supreme Court on freedom of expression. * 96. Taking into account the above considerations, the Court concludes that the extent of further liability imposed in this case failed to comply with the obligation to adopt domestic legal effects in Article 2 of the American Convention, in relation to the right to freedom of expression, regarding civil legislation. 67 Cf. Case of Almonacid Arellano et al. V. Chile. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Serie C No. 154, para. 124, and Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores V. México. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 26, 2010. Serie C No. 220, para. 225. 30