16 of H.R., specifically in the Case of Almonacid Arellano which gave rise to the doctrine of "diffused control of conformity with the Convention,” is emphatic upon establishing in para. 123 that: when the Legislative Power fails to set aside and / or adopts laws which are contrary to the American Convention, the Judiciary is bound to honor the obligation to respect rights as stated in Article 1(1) of the said Convention, and consequently, it must refrain from enforcing any laws contrary to such Convention. The observance by State agents or officials of a law which violates the Convention gives rise to the international liability of such State, as contemplated in International Human Rights Law, in the sense that every State is internationally responsible for the acts or omissions of any of its powers or bodies for the violation of internationally protected rights, pursuant to Article 1(1) of the American Convention. 54 (underlining added). 41. Thus, the "diffused the control of conformity with convention" although exercised by all national judges, it has different degrees of intensity and execution, in accordance with "their respective competences and corresponding procedural regulations." In principle, it corresponds to all judges and courts to make an "interpretation" of the national standard in light of the Convention, its Additional Protocols (and possibly of other treaties), as well as the jurisprudence of the I/A Court of H.R. and always with the interpretive rule of the principle pro homine of Article 29 of the Pact of San José; in this first degree of intensity, an interpretation according to the conventional parameters will be made, and therefore, those interpretations that are not in conformity with the Convention or less effective in regard to the enjoyment and protection of the right or freedom concerned will be discarded; there exists, is in this sense, a comparison with the "consistent interpretation" and with the Constitution made by national courts, especially constitutional judges. Second, and only if the conformity with the Convention of the internal standard cannot be saved, the " control of conformity with the Convention" should be applied with more intensity, be it by disapplying the norm in the specific case or by declaring the invalidity with general effects, as a result of the unconventionality, in accordance with the respective responsibilities of each national court. c) It must be exercised “ex oficio”: be it invoked or not by the parties 42. This characteristic of the “diffused control of conformity with the Convention” constitutes a precision of the original doctrine. The Case of the Dismissed Congressional Employees (Aguado Alfaro et al.) v. Perú,55 two months after the Case of Almonacid Arellano v. Chile, established that as of then, the jurisprudence of the I/A Court of H.R. has remained the same. It consists of the possibility of exercising said control by domestic judges, regardless of whether the parties invoked it. In fact, it constitutes a complement of the “diffused” nature of said control. If in the prior characteristic of the "diffused control of conformity with the Convention" the intent of the I/A Court of H.R. is established regarding the “obligation” of any judge, regardless of rank, grade level or subject of specialization (whence it is a "fuzzy control"), now that character is accentuated further by specifying that it is an obligation that must be exercised "ex oficio," which means that under any circumstance, judges must exercise this control, since “this function 54 Cf. Case of Ximenes Lopes, supra note 13, para. 172; and Case of Baldeón García, supra note 13, para. 140. 55 Idem.