25 67. In this sense, the judges or tribunals that materially realize judicial activities, be it of local or federal jurisdiction, must necessarily exercise the “diffused control of conformity with the Convention” in order to achieve the interpretations that conform with the Inter-American corpus juris. In the case of absolute incompatibility between the national norm and the conventional parameter, it must be disapplied for those to prevail and thereby achieve the realization of the right or freedom concerned. The foregoing applies as well to the local judges, in conformity with the Political Constitution of the United Mexican States, in its Article 133 in force, which states:93 This Constitution, the laws of Congress under it, and all the Treaties that are in accordance therewith, entered into and to be held by the President with Senate approval, will be the Supreme Law of the Union. Judges in every State shall conform to the Constitution, laws and treaties, notwithstanding any contradictory provisions that may appear in the Constitutions or laws of the States. (Underlining added). 68. As can be seen in the latter part of this constitutional provision, local judges apply "the Supreme Law of the Union" (where the international treaties are found) when there is incompatibility with some other standard that does not integrate this "Supreme Law"; this implies that the local jurisdiction judges should go as far as to disapply those standards inconsistent with the norm of the "constitutional block." In other words, it is the Constitution which empowers the judges of ordinary courts to exercise "the diffused control of constitutionality" and therefore the American Convention on Human Rights can become a valid parameter control, not just the Constitution. Thus, as it has been held by the I/A Court of H.R., judges and bodies linked to the administration of justice “shall exercise not only constitutional control but also of “control of conformity with the Convention” ex officio between the domestic norms and the American Convention, apparently in the framework of their powers and the corresponding procedural regulations.”94 69. The last part of this provision is of special significance to the intensity of the "diffused control of conformity with the Convention," since judges must exercise it "under their respective powers and corresponding procedural regulations." As we have discussed in advance (see supra paras. 34 to 41), all judges must carry out the "control" and the intensity will be determined by the skills and procedural regulations. In principle, all Mexican judges should part from the principle of constitutionality and of conformity with the Convention of the national standard and therefore a first step should always be to carry out the "interpretation" of the national standard under the Constitution and the conventional parameters, which means opting for the interpretation of the rule more favorable and of more effective protection regarding the rights and freedoms under the principle pro homine libertatis or favor libertatis provided for in Article 29 of the Pact of San Jose, rejecting those interpretations of inconsistent or less protective reach, so that, contrario sensu, when it involves the case of restrictions or limitations to rights and freedoms, it should be the strictest interpretation for this limitation. And only when possible conventional constitutional interpretation can not be achieved, 93 This Article has only gone through one reform of its original text of 1917, in the year 1934, published in the Official Gazette of the Federation on January 18, of that year. The concept has been interpreted in different manners by the tribunals and the Mexican doctrine during its time in force, including in the Constitutions prior to the 1917. On the different interpretative stances, See Carpizo, Jorge, “La interpretación del Article 133 constitucional”, [The interpretation of Article 133 of the Constituiton] in Boletín Mexicano de Derecho Comparado, México [Mexican Bulletin of Comparative Law], IIJ-UNAM, núm. 4, 1969, pp. 3-32. 94 128. Case of Dismissed Congressional Employees (Aguado Alfaro et al.) v. Perú, supra note 15, para.