7 Loor v. Panamá (2010);25 Gomes Lund et al. (Guerrilha do Araguaia) v. Brazil (2010),26 and now, Cabrera García and Montiel Flores v. México (2010).27 16. Moreover, the doctrinal jurisprudence was also applied in the orders for monitoring of compliance of the judgments, in the Cases of Fermín Ramírez, and Raxcacó Reyes, as well as in the request for “expansion of provisional measures” in Raxcacó Reyes et al. v. Guatemala.28 It has also been a cause for profound reflection by some of the judges of the I/A Court of H.R. in casting their concurring opinions, to include former presidents García Ramírez,29 and Cançado Trindade,30 as well as ad hoc judge Roberto de Figueiredo Caldas,31 to which I will refer to later. B. CONTRIBUTIONS IN THE CASE OF CABRERA GARCÍA AND MONTIEL FLORES 17. Regarding the Judgment to which this concurring opinion corresponds, the essence of the doctrine of “control of compliance” is reiterated with some precisions that are of relevance, in the following terms: 225. This Court has held in its case law that it is aware that domestic authorities are bound to respect the rule of law, and therefore, they are bound to apply the provisions in force within the legal system.32 But when a State has ratified an 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 24 Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña v. Bolivia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 1, 2010. Series C No. 217, para. 202. 25 Case of Vélez Loor v. Panamá. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 23, 2010. Series C No. 218, para. 287. 26 Case of Gomes Lund et al. (Guerrilha do Araguaia) v. Brazil. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2010. Series C No. 219, para. 106. 27 Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores v. Mexico, supra note 1, para. 225. 28 Matter of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 9, 2008, para. 63. 29 In addition to the concurring opinions reffered supra note 11, see also the votes subsequent to the leading case Almonacid Arellano, issued reflecting on the “control of conformity with the Convention”: Case of Dismissed Congressional Employees (Aguado Alfaro et al.) v. Perú, supra note 15, para. 1 to 13 of concurring opinion; and Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 192, para. 3 of the concurring opinion. 30 Cf. Its concurring opinion in the Case of Dismissed Congressional Employees (Aguado Alfaro et al.) v. Perú, supra note 15, particularly paras. 2 and 3 of its opinion; as well as the request for interpretation of the Judgment rendered in said case, on November 30, 2007, particularly paras. 5 to 12, 45 and 49, of its dissenting opinion. 31 Cf. Its concurring opinion in the Case of Gomes Lund et al. (Guerrilha do Araguaia) v. Brazil. supra note 4, paras. 4 and 5. 32 Cf. Case of Almonacid Arellano et al v. Chile. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 154, para. 124; Case of Rosendo Cantú et al v. Mexico, supra note 30, para. 219; and Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña v. Bolivia, supra note 30, para. 202.