itself, that deprives any right in the Convention of its essential content and of its maximum possible scope is contrary to Article 29 and, therefore, would be prohibited. 10. Thirdly, in addition to the hermeneutical norms of Article 29, there are the interpretive provisions of the International Law of Human Rights, such as the principles pro personae and effet utile. 18 These principles contribute to achieving the object and purpose of the treaties, in the terms of Article 31 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which, in the case of the American Convention, are translated into the effective protection of all the human rights contemplated therein. The pro personae principle was defined by the Court in its Advisory Opinion No. 5 (1985) as the requirement that “the rule most favorable to the individual must prevail.” 19 It is a norm applicable to all scenarios of interpretation of the human rights in the American Convention and, according to Judge Piza, “requires that the norms which guarantee or extend human rights be broadly interpreted and those that limit or restrict human rights be narrowly interpreted." 20 Therefore, in the event of a factual conjuncture in which two or more rights included in the Convention clash, the reasoning of the Court should not be exclusionary in that one supplants the other. The principle of effectiveness (“effet utile”), in turn, states that “the provisions […] should be interpreted and applied in a manner that the guarantee protected is truly practical and effective.” 21 As Judge Serghides, Vice President of the European Court of Human Rights, stated, that principle derives from the general rule of the interpretation of treaties found in Article 31(1) of the Vienna Convention, referring to the principles of good faith and effectiveness in the manner in which the ordinary meaning and the object and purpose of the treaty in question should be interpreted. 22 Therefore, to rule out the simultaneous application of overlapping rights in the Convention would make illusory the protection offered by one or even both rights. 11. In the fourth place, the very nature of human rights requires that they be considered in their totality. It is axiomatic to consider human rights as universal, indivisible, independent and interrelated; a way of understanding that they have as a 62(3) and 65 of the Convention, as well as Article 30 of its Statute– that its monitoring jurisdiction is essential to “ensure that the State effectively complies with the duty to guarantee established in the referred to provision of the Convention, in the understanding that, without the monitoring, its judgments would be illusory. 18 Of course, in addition to the general norm of interpretation of treaties established in Article 31 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. 19 Compulsory Membership in an Association Prescribed by Law for the Practice of Journalism (Arts. 13 and 29 American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-5/85 of November 13, 1985. Series A No. 5, para. 52. 20 Separate opinion of Judge Rodolfo E. Piza Escalante in Enforcement of the Right to Reply or Correction (Arts. 14(1), 1(1) and 2 American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-7/86 of August 29, 1986. Series A No. 7, para. 36. 21 Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Jurisdiction. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 66. 22 Ver: Georgios A. Serghides, The principle of effectiveness and its overarching role in the interpretation and application of the ECHR: the norm of all norms and the method of all methods, Strasbourg: [Georgios A. Serghides], 2022. Cf. paras. 15 and 22 of the concurring opinion of Judge Serghides in S.M. v. Croatia [ECHR, Grand Chamber], No. 60561/14, June 25, 2020; para. 19 of the concurring opinion of Judge Serghides in Obote Vs. Russia [ECHR, Third Section], No. 58954/09, November 19, 2019; paras. 8-12 of the dissenting opinion of Judge Serghides in Rashkin v. Russia [ECHR, Third Section], No. 69575/10, July 7, 2020; and para. 6 of the concurring opinion of Judge Serghides in OOO Regnum v. Russia [Third Section], No. 22649/08, September 8, 2020. 4