6 125. By the same token, the Court has established that “according to international law, the obligations that it imposes must be honored in good faith and domestic laws cannot be invoked to justify their violation.”14 This provision is embodied in Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969. 14. The prior precedent was reiterated with some variation, two months later, in the Case of the Dismissed Congressional Employees (Aguado - Alfaro et al.) v. Peru.15 Here, in this ruling, the standards in the Case of Almonacid Arellano are used in what regards the “control of compliance” and it “specifies” it in two ways: (i) it should proceed “ex officio,” without the parties requesting it; and (ii) it should be exercised in the context of their respective spheres of competence and the corresponding procedural regulations, considering other formal and material plans regarding admissibility. 15. Since then, the essence of this doctrine has been growing stronger, upon being applied to the following contentious cases: La Cantuta v. Perú (2006);16 Boyce et al. v. Barbados (2007);17 Heliodoro Portugal v. Panamá (2008);18 Rosendo Radilla Pacheco v. the United Mexican States (2009);19 Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia (2010);20 The Xákmok Kásek Indigenous Community v. Paraguay (2010);21 Fernández Ortega et al. v. México (2010);22 Rosendo Cantú et al. v. México (2010);23 Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña v. Bolivia (2010);24 Vélez 14 Cf. International Responsibility for the Issuance and Application of Laws in Violation of the Convention (Arts. 1 and 2 of the American Convention on Human Rights), Advisory Opinion OC-14/94 of December 9, 1994, Series A No. 14, para. 35. 15 Case of Dismissed Congressional Employees (Aguado Alfaro et al.) v. Perú. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2006. Series C No. 158, para. 128: When a State has ratified an international treaty such as the American Convention, the judges are also subject to it; this obliges them to ensure that the effet util of the Convention is not reduced or annulled by the application of laws contrary to its provisions, object and purpose. In other words, the organs of the Judiciary should exercise not only a control of constitutionality, but also of “conventionality[compliance]”15 ex officio between domestic norms and the American Convention; evidently in the context of their respective spheres of competence and the corresponding procedural regulations. This function should not be limited exclusively to the statements or actions of the plaintiffs in each specific case, although neither does it imply that this control must always be exercised, without considering other procedural and substantive criteria regarding the admissibility and legitimacy of these types of action. (underlining added). 16 Case of La Cantuta v. Perú. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 29, 2006. Series C No. 162, para. 173. 17 Case of Boyce et al. v. Barbados. Preliminary Exception, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2007. Series C No. 169, para. 79. 18 Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panamá. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 12, 2008. Series C No. 186, para. 180. 19 Case of Rosendo Radilla Pacheco v. United Mexican States. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 23, 2009. Series C No. 209, para. 339. 20 Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia. Preliminary Exceptions, Merits and Reparations. Judgment of May 26, 2010. Series C No. 213, para. 208, note 307. 21 Indigenous Community Xákmok Kásek v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 24, 2010. Series C No. 214, para. 311. 22 Case of Fernández Ortega et al. v. México. Preliminary Exception, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 30, 2010. Series C No. 215, para. 234. 23 Case of Rosendo Cantú et al. v. México. Preliminary Exception, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2010. Series C No. 216, para. 219.