78 b) Forced or compulsory labor 154. The representatives claimed the alleged violation of Article 6(2) of the Convention to the detriment of the persons who were detained and compelled to herd the livestock stolen during the paramilitary incursion in El Aro. When examining the content and scope of this article in the instant case, the Court will bear in mind the significance of the prohibition of forced or compulsory labor, in light of the general rules of interpretation established in Article 29 of the Convention. 155. On other occasions, both this Court174 and the European Court of Human Rights175 have indicated that human rights treaties are living instruments whose interpretation must take into consideration changes over time and current conditions. This evolutive interpretation is consequent with the general rules of interpretation embodied in Article 29 of the American Convention, and in those established in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. 156. In this regard, the Court has affirmed that, the interpretation of a treaty must take into account not only the agreements and instruments related to the treaty (paragraph 2 of Article 31 of the Vienna Convention), but also the system of which it is part (paragraph 3 of Article 31 of that Convention).176 157. In the instant case, when examining the scope of the said Article 6(2) of the Convention, the Court finds it useful and appropriate to use other international treaties than the American Convention, such as the International Labour Organization (hereinafter “ILO”) Convention No. 29 concerning Forced Labour, to interpret its provisions in keeping with the evolution of the inter-American system, taking into consideration the developments on this issue in international human rights law.177 174 Cf. Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community, supra note 9, para. 117; Case of the Indigenous Community Yakye Axa. Judgment June 17, 2005. Series C No. 125, para. 125; and Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers. Judgment of July 8, 2004. Series C No. 110, para. 165. Likewise, cf. The right to Information on Consular Assistance in the Framework of the Guarantees of the Due Process of Law. Advisory Opinion OC-16/97 of November 14, 1997. Series A No. 16, para. 114. 175 Cf. Eur.C.H.R., Tyrer v. the United Kingdom, 5856/72, Judgment of 25 April 1978. Series A no. A26, para. 31. 176 Cf. Case of the Indigenous Community Yakye Axa, supra note 174, para. 126; Case of Tibi. Judgment of September 7, 2004. Series C No. 114, para. 144; and Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers, supra note 174, para. 164. Likewise, cf. The right to Information on Consular Assistance in the Framework of the Guarantees of the Due Process of Law, supra note 174, para. 113. 177 In this regard, the Court has indicated that the corpus juris of international human rights law comprises a set of international instruments of varied content and juridical effects (treaties, conventions, resolutions and declarations). Its dynamic evolution has had a positive impact on international law in affirming and building up the latter’s faculty for regulating relations between States and the individuals within their respective jurisdictions. This Court, therefore, must adopt the proper approach to consider this question in the context of the evolution of the fundamental rights of the individual in contemporary international law. Cf. Juridical Status and Rights of Undocumented Migrants. Advisory Opinion OC-18/03 of September 17, 2003. Series A No. 18, para. 120, and Cf. The right to Information on Consular Assistance in the Framework of the Guarantees of the Due Process of Law, supra note 174, para. 115.