86 international treaty such as the American Convention, all its bodies, including its judges, are also bound by such Convention, which forces them to see that all the effects of the provisions embodied in the Convention are not adversely affected by the enforcement of laws which are contrary to its purpose and end. The Judiciary, in all its levers, must exercise ex officio a sort of “conventionality control” between the domestic legal provisions and the American Convention, evidently within the framework of their respective competence and the corresponding procedural rules. To perform this task, the Judiciary has to take into account not only the treaty, but also the interpretation thereof made by the Inter-American Court, which is the ultimate interpreter of the American Convention.333 226. Hence, for example, supreme tribunals of the region had referred to and applied the conventionality control taking into account the interpretations made by the Inter-American Court. The Constitutional Room of the Supreme Court of Justice of Costa Rica has pointed out that: it is worth noting that if the Inter-American Court of Human Rights is the natural organ to interpret the American Convention on Human Rights […], the power of its decision when interpreting the convention and trying the domestic laws in light of this rule, be it in a contentious case or in a simple consultation, shall have -in principle- the same value of the interpreted rule.334 227. In turn, the Constitutional Court of Bolivia has mentioned that: In fact, the Pact of San Jose, Costa Rica, as a rule included in the collection of constitutional rules, is comprised of three essential parts, closely related to each other: the first one, made up of the preamble; the second one, called the dogmatic part and the third one related to the organic part. Precisely, Chapter VIII of this treaty regulates the Inter-American Court of Human Rights; consequently, following a “systemic” criterion of constitutional interpretation, it should be established that this organ and therefore, its decisions, also form part of this collection of constitutional rules. The foregoing because of two specific legal reasons, namely: 1) The subjectmatter of the competence of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and, 2) the application of the “effet util” doctrine to judgments concerning Human Rights.335 228. Likewise, the Supreme Court of Justice of the Dominican Republic has established that: consequently, it is binding for the Dominican State and, therefore, for the Judiciary, not only the rules of the American Convention on Human Rights but its interpretations made by the competent organs, created as means of protection, according to article 33 therein, which confers competence with 333 Cf. Case of Almonacid Arellano et al v. Chile, supra note 332, para. 124; Case of Rosendo Cantú et al v. Mexico, supra note 30, para. 219; Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña v. Bolivia, supra note 30, para. 202. 334 Cf. Judgment of May 9, 1995 issued by the Constitutional Room of the Supreme Court of Justice of Costa Rica. Constitutional motion. Opinion 2313-95 (Case File 0421-S-90), Considering clause VII. 335 Judgment handed down on May 10, 2010 by the Constitutional Tribunal of Bolivia (Case file N° 2006-13381-27-RAC), chapter III.3 on “The Inter-American System of Human Rights. Grounds and effects of the Judgments issued by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.”