28 to those rights or freedoms.” Hence the phrase "or other measures" includes "constitutional interpretations" that allow the applicability of the rights with greater effectiveness and reach, in terms of the pro homine principle enshrined in Article 29 of the Pact of San José. This could be cause for reflection to overcome the jurisprudential criteria mentioned by the Plenary of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation. 74. The pro homine principle has been considered by a Mexican tribunal of “obligatory application,” given that it is foreseen in international treaties that form part of the Supreme Law of the Union in terms of the reproduced Article 133 of the Federal Constitution. In this way, it was established by the Fourth Collegiate Tribunal on Administrative Matters of the First Circuit, upon deciding on the direct amparo 202/2004, on October 20, 2004, forming thesis I.4º.A.464 A, whose rubric and text are:102 PRO HOMINE PRINCIPLE. ITS OBLIGATORY APPLICATION. The pro homine principle implies that the legal interpretation must always seek the greatest benefit to man, that is, it should be set to the most comprehensive standard or broad interpretation when it comes to protected rights and, in contrast to the standard or narrower interpretation when it comes to setting limits to its exercise provided for in Article 29 of the American Convention on Human Rights and 5 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, published in the Official Gazette of the Federation on May 7 and 20, 1981, respectively. However, as these treaties are part of the Supreme Law of the Union under Article 133 of the Constitution, it is clear that this principle should be applied on a compulsory basis. (Emphasis added). 75. The “constitutional” and “legal” interpretations carried out by the judges and bodies that impart justice in Mexico at all levels, must be carried out in the light, not only of the international instruments whose commitment is taken on by the State of Mexico, but also by the jurisprudence of the I/A Court of H.R.. The latter, given that it constitutes a judicial organ of the InterAmerican System for Protection of Human Rights at the international seat, whose jurisdiction is the application and interpretation of the American Convention; this body in reality determines the same content of the Conventional text, in such a way that the interpreted norm acquires direct effectiveness in Mexico, upon the Pact having been signed by the State of Mexico and having been recognized the jurisdiction of the I/A Court of H.R.. As established in the Judgment of the Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores, that motivates the present concurring opinion (and that applies to the three cases mentioned): 233. Hence, as indicated in the case of Radilal Pacheco, Fernandez Ortega and Rosendo Cantu, it is necessary that the constitutional and legislative interpretations concerning the criteria for the personal and subject matter jurisdiction of the military jurisdiction in Mexico needs to be adapted to the principles established in the Court’s jurisprudence, which have been reiterated in the present case103 and that apply for all violations of human 102 Published in the Semanario Judicial de la Federación y su Gaceta, Novena Época, TCC, Tome XXI, February 2005, p. 1744. 103 Cf. Case of Radilla Pacheco v. United Mexican States, supra note 19, para. 340; Case of Fernández Ortega et al.. v. México, supra note 21, para. 237, and Case of Rosendo Cantú et al. v. México, supra note 22, para. 220.