interpretation of the Convention, and mandating that, in that exercise, the meaning and scope that is understood cannot permit a limitation of the human right that the Convention ensures or that is recognized by the other legal instruments it indicates. Therefore, this article obliges the Court to interpret the rights ensure in the Convention with the broadest meaning and scope established in this instrument or in other applicable legal instruments. 21. Furthermore, regarding case law as an instrument of interpretation, it should be recalled that the judgment delivered by the Court in a case that has been submitted to its consideration is binding only for the State Party or States Parties to the case.36 For all the other States, it constitutes a supplementary means for determining the rules of law.37 And, in the case of advisory opinions, these are not binding and cannot be binding because the States are not obliged to appear before the Court in the process for their elaboration, and it does not involve an adversarial procedure. Moreover, the Convention does not assign a binding nature to advisory opinions since the OAS organs and even the States can request them with regard to the compatibility of any of their laws with the Convention38 and .39 22. Also, with regard to case law, it appears necessary to include some brief comments on the expressions used in several of the Court’s judgments, such as that “human rights treaties are living instruments, the interpretation of which must evolve with the times and current circumstances.”40 The first comment is that this is established in Article 31(3)(a) and (b) of the Vienna Convention, when it indicates that, together with the context, there should be taken into account the agreements and the practice of the States regarding the interpretation of the treaty concerned. Thus, the evolutive aspect should refer more to the applicable law than to the case law issued concerning it. 23. The second comment is that, consequently, the said evolutive interpretation should relate specifically to the society regulated by international law and, in particular, by the Convention; in other words, the international society formed of sovereign States that are all equal, among which there is no pre-established hierarchy of power or of laws, or enforceability of submission to an international judicial instance, and where the legislative and executive functions correspond to the States. It is in that context in which, as legal doctrine indicates, the judicial function consisting in transforming the (c) precluding other rights or guarantees that are inherent in the human personality or derived from representative democracy as a form of government, or (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. 36 37 Supra, footnote 12. Supra, footnote 13. 38 Supra, footnote 11. 39 Separate opinion of Judge Eduardo Vio Grossi, Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Advisory Opinion OC-24/17, of November 24, 2017, requested by the Republic of Costa Rica, Gender Identity, and Equality and Non-Discrimination with regard to Same-Sex Couples. State Obligations in relation to Change of Name, Gender Identity, and Rights deriving from a relationship between SameSex Couples (Interpretation and scope of Articles 1(1), 3, 7, 11(2), 13, 17, 18 and 24, in relation to Article 1, of the American Convention on Human Rights), paras. 8 to 16. 40 Case of the Workers of the Fireworks Factory of Santo Antônio de Jesus v. Brazil. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 15, 2020. Series C No. 407, para. 158. Hereafter, each time that “para.” or “paras.” Is indicated, it is understood that this refers to a “paragraph” or “paragraphs” of the judgment or document referred to.