8. An integral focus of human rights is based, in the first place, on the idea of systematicity. The substantive articles of the Convention are, thus, not a mere list of rights that must be protected and guaranteed by the States. They are, in effect, pieces of the true system of human rights that contains “particular elements of a structure that make sense intellectually.” 7 This systemical hermeneutic 8 requires that it is not sufficient to declare the non-compliance with one or another norm of the Convention, individually considered, without analyzing its interaction with the totality of the group of norms that the treaty establishes. To do so would demonstrate a lack of respect for the dignity of the individual, 9 because within the idea of systematicity there underlies the imperative that individuals, having been granted reason, must be treated reasonably, in which the norms are not mutually excluded, but are interrelated. Therefore, applying the Convention to a specific case presupposes respect for its integrality and its interpreters cannot accept compromises. 10 This means that there are no trade-offs among the rights in the Convention: by recognizing the effect of a right, the Court does not renounce its duty to elaborate its standards on other rights that are concomitantly applicable. 11 Taking the Convention seriously is to assume that the rights therein have a dimension that makes them resistant to considerations of convenience and, therefore, they cannot be elected at whim. 12 Each of them offers protections that can be “insistently requested, revindicated, and demanded, without modesty or shame.” 13 9. Secondly, the global and integral dimension of rights must comply with the norms of interpretation of the Convention. Its Article 29(a) in particular establishes that “[n]o 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.” In the majority of cases, the Court utilizes this provision to prohibit an “abuse” of those rights by the States, whether they be limitations, 14 derogations 15 or by formulating reservations. 16 Moreover, the literal interpretation of the caput of that provision and the use the analytic passive voice (“no provision of this Convention shall be interpreted as”) demonstrate that its applicability is not restricted to a specific subject (such as the States), as seen in the judgment on jurisdiction in Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panamá (2003). 17 Therefore, any interpretation of the Convention, even by the Court Jeremy Waldron, Dignity, Rank, and Rights, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2012, p. 54. Although the systemical method of juridical interpretation does not have its own autonomy and is associated with other methods, this method makes it difficult for the interpreters to broaden the scope of their interpretation. See: Fábio P. Shecaira and Noel Struchiner, Teoría de la argumentación jurídica: para entender el discurso de los jueces y abogados, trad. Juan Carlos Panez Solórzano and Israel Sánchez Cerna, Lima, Grijley, 2019, pp. 199-121. 9 Waldron, Dignity, Rank, and Rights, op. cit., pp. 54-55. See also Waldron, “The Concept and the Rule of Law”, 43(1) Georgia Law Review, 2008, pp. 1-61. 10 For the idea of “integrality,” see Ronald Dworkin, Law’s Empire, 2. Ed., Barcelona, Gedisa, 1992, chapters 6 and 7. 11 Cf. Concurring opinion of Judge Rodrigo Mudrovitsch in Guevara Díaz v. Costa Rica. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 22, 2022. Series C No. 453, paras. 33-38. 12 Ibid, pp. 160-161. 13 Joel Feinberg, “Duties, Rights, and Claims”, 3(2) American Philosophical Quarterly, 1966, p. 143, in Waldron, Dignity, Rank, and Rights, op. cit., p. 50. 14 Art. 30, ACHR. 15 Art. 27, ACHR. Cf. Case of J. v. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2013. Series C No. 275, para. 124. 16 Art. 75, ACHR. Similarly, see Boyce et al. v. Barbados. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2007. Series C No. 169, para. 15 and Restrictions to the Death Penalty (Arts. 4(2) and 4(4) American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-3/83 of September 8, 1983. Series A No. 3, para. 66. 17 Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Jurisdiction. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 95. This judgment established the juridical basis of the jurisdiction of the Court to monitor compliance of the judgment. In that context, the Court concluded – by its interpretation of Articles 33, 62(1), 7 8 3