19 "advisory opinions" referred to in Article 64 of said Pact, due precisely to the fact that its objective is "the interpretation of this Convention or other treaties concerning the protection of the humans rights in the American States.”64 50. In this manner, an authentic "conformity with the Convention block" forms as a parameter to exercise “diffused control of conformity with the Convention.” National judges must head to this "block," which implies, on their behalf, the continuous actualization of the jurisprudence of the I/A Court of H.R. and promotes a "live interaction" between national jurisdictions and that of the Inter-American system, with the ultimate aim of setting standards in our region for the effective protection of human rights. 51. The domestic judge, therefore, must apply the jurisprudence of the Convention, including that which is established in matters where not part of the national State to which it belongs, given that what defines the integration of the jurisprudence of the I/A Court of H.R. is the interpretation that said Inter-American Court carries out regarding the Inter-American corpus juris in order to create a standard in the region on applicability and effectiveness.65 This, is considered of utmost importance for the healthy understanding of the "diffused control of conformity with the Convention," given that intending to reduce the obligatory nature of the jurisprudence of the Convention only in cases where the State has been a "material part" would be equivalent to a rejection or annulment of the essence of the American Convention, whose commitments were assumed by national States upon signing and ratifying or acceding to it, and whose noncompliance produces international responsibility. 52. Thus, the "normative force" of the American Convention reaches the scope of the interpretation made of it by the I/A Court of H.R., as "ultimate interpreter" of the Pact in the Inter-American System for the Protection of Human Rights. The interpretation taken by the Inter-American Court of the provisions of the Convention, takes on the same effectiveness encompassed by them, since in fact the "norms of the Convention" are the result of the “interpretation of the Convention” undertaken by the I/A Court of H.R. as a body “whose goal is the independent judicial application and interpretation” 66 of the Inter-American corpus juris. In other words, the result of the interpretation of the American Convention constitutes its jurisprudence, that is, "the norms that derive from the ACHR, from which it is stated that they are to enjoy the same (direct) effectiveness of such international treaty.”67 64 Cf. Advisory Opinion OC-1/82. September 24, 1982. Series A No. 1, related to “Other treaties” subject to the advisory jurisdiction of the Court (Art. 64 American Convention on Human Rights), presented by the government of Peru. 65 Thus, for example, the standards set by the European Court of Human Rights, international treaties, the universal system, the resolutions of the UN Committee on the recommendations of the Commission on Human Rights or reports of special rapporteurs of the OAS or UN, among others, can be part of its jurisprudence, provided the IACHR's use and endorse it form their interpretation of the InterAmerican corpus juris and to create the conventional standard interpreted as the Inter-American standard. 66 Article 1 of the Statute of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, approved by resolution num. 448 of the General Assembly of the OAS, in La Paz, Bolivia (October 1979). 67 Ferrer Mac-Gregor, Eduardo, and Silva García, Fernando, “Homicidios de mujeres por razón de género. El Case of Campo Algodonero”, [Homicides of women for gender purposes. The Case of the Cotton Fields]. en von Bogdandy, Armin, Ferrer Mac-Gregor, Eduardo, and Morales Antoniazzi, Mariela (coords.), La justicia constitucional y su internacionalización: ¿Hacia un Ius Constitutionale Commune en América Latina?, [Constitutional Justice and its Internationalization: Towards a Ius Constitutionale