26 judges should disapply the national legislation or declare its invalid, according to the jurisdiction that the Constitution and laws given to each judge, which will cause a greater degree of intensity "of the control of conformity with the Convention.” 70. It does not go unnoticed that the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation has interpreted Article 133 of the Constitution in the sense (i) that international treaties, if in fact, they form part of the "Supreme Law of the Union" are located hierarchically below the Constitution; 95 and (ii) that there does not exist a "diffused control of constitutionality" on the part of local judges. 96 The first is an interpretation which is not a binding precedent given the failure to achieve the required vote for it, 97 and thereby different interpretations exist by other Mexican judicial bodies; 98 and the second, although the jurisprudence is mandatory for all Mexican judges in terms of norms applicable, we believe it should be harmonized to achieve greater development of the "diffused control of conformity with the 95 Thesis IX/2007, of the Plenary of the Supreme Court, whose rubric and text are: “INTERNATIONAL TREATISES. THEY ARE PART OF THE SUPREME LAW OF THE UNION AND ARE HEIRARCHICALY SITUATED ABOVE THE GENERAL LAWS, FEDERAL AND LOCA LAWS. CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETAITON OF ARTICLE 133. The systematic interpretation of Article 133 of the Constitution of the United Mexican States allows for the identification of the existence of a superior legal order, of a national character, integrated by the Federal Constitution, international treaties, and the general laws. Also, from this interpretation, harmonized with the principles of international law in the constitutional text scattered, as well as rules and basic premises of that law, it is concluded that international treaties are located hierarchically below the Federal Constitution and above the general, federal and local laws, to the extent that the Mexican State to such transactions, in accordance with the provisions of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties between States and International Organizations or between International Organizations, following the fundamental principle of customary international law "pacta sunt servanda" freely contracted obligations to the international community can not be ignored by invoking rules of law and breach which is, moreover, a responsibility of an international character." (underlining added). Published in the Semanario Judicial de la Federación y su Gaceta, Pleno, Tome XXV, abril de 2007, p. 6. 96 Jurisprudencial Thesis 74/99, of the Plenary of the Supreme Court, whose rubric and text are: “DIFFUSED CONTROL OF CONSTITUTIONALITY OF GENERAL NORMS. NOT AUTHORIZED IN ARTICLE 133 OF THE CONSTITUITON. The express language of Article 133 of the Federal Constitution prevents that “Judges in every State shall be bound to the Constitution, laws and treaties despite the contradictory provisions that may appear in the Constitutions or laws of the States." In that literal sense, the Supreme Court ruled, however, the position supported later by the High Court, predominantly, has been in another sense, taking into account a systematic interpretation of the precepts and principles that shape our Constitution. Indeed, the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation considers that Article 133 of the Constitution is not a source of constitutional control for authorities exercising jurisdiction materially, for acts of others, such as the laws emanating from the Congress itself, nor of their own actions, allowing them to ignore some and not others, since that provision shall be construed in light of the system established by the Constitution itself to that effect. "(Underlining added). Published in the Semanario Judicial de la Federación y su Gaceta, Pleno, tome X, agosto de 1999, p. 5. 97 In the terms of Article 192 of the Law of Ampara, the resolutions constitute obligatory jurisprudence, when what is resolved in them is based on five executions not interrupted by another contradicting one, and that it also require, in addition, at least eight votos of the judges of the Plenary. In the specific case, the matter was approved by the majority of six against five. 98 For example, the Thesis XI.1º.A.T.45 K, whose rubric and text are: “INTERNATIONAL TREATISES. WHEN THE CONFLICTS ARISE IN REGARD TO HUMAN RIGHTS, THEY SHOULD BE ANALYZED AT THE CONSTITUITONAL LEVEL. Treaties or conventions signed by the Mexican government on human rights, must be centered on the Constitution of the United Mexican States, because these instruments were designed as an extension of the provisions of Basic Law concerning human rights, in as much as these are the reason and purpose of the institutions. As the principles that make up the public the legal right, they must be adapted to different purposes of defense which are provided for by the Constitution and in accordance with Article 133 the Mexican authorities must respect them, so it and under no circumstance must they ignore it acting according to their jurisdiction." (Underlining added) Published in the Semanario Judicial de la Federación y su Gaceta, TCC, Tome XXXI, May 2010, p. 2079).