21 rule, if appropriate, that the consequences of the measure or situation that constituted the breach of such right or freedom be remedied and that fair compensation be paid to the injured party. (underlining added) 57. Although that provision refers to the attributes of the I/A Court of H.R, mutatis mutandis, it should be applied by domestic judges because they are also Inter-American judges when they carry out the "diffused control of conformity with the Convention.” And that implies ensuring, as far as is possible, the effective enjoyment of the right or freedom violated. This leads to the affirmation that, in certain cases, the consequences of unconventional standards must be repaired, which can only be achieved by "revoking" these national standards from its conception and not from its nonapplication or declaration of unconventionality. In other words, such retroactivity is necessary in some cases to achieve an adequate enjoyment of the relevant right or freedom. This affirmation, in addition, is consistent with the jurisprudence of the I/A Court of H.R. in the interpretation of Article 63(1) of the Pact of San Jose, when it has considered that any violation of an international obligation that has caused This constitutes “one of the damage must “appropriately” remedy it; 72 fundamental principles of contemporary international law on State responsibility.” 73 f) Legal basis of “diffused control of conformity with the Convention”: the Pact of San Jose and the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treatises 58. From the beginning of this jurisprudential doctrine of this type of control, in the Case of Almonacid Arellano v. Chile,74 the following was established: 124. (…) But when a State has ratified an international treaty such as the American Convention, its judges, as part of the State, are also bound by such Convention. This 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 that have not had any legal effects since their inception (…) 125. By the same token, the Court has established that “according to international law, the obligations that it imposes must be honored in good faith and domestic laws cannot be invoked to justify their violation.” This provision is embodied in Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969. (underlining added). 59. The principles of international law relating to Good Faith and Effet Utile, which in turn involves the principle of Pacta Sunt Servanda, make up the international foundations for national States to comply with international treaties and have been constantly reiterated by the jurisprudence of the I/A Court of H.R. in cases brought under its jurisdiction, whether before the advisory body, as in 72 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras, supra note 5, para. 25; Case of Chitay Nech et al.. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 25, 2010. Series C No. 212 para. 227; and Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas. Preliminary Exceptions, Merits and Reparations. Judgment of May 26, 2010. Series C No. 213, para. 211. 73 Cf. Case of Castillo Páez v. Perú. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 1998. Series C No. 43, para. 43; Case of Chitay Nech et al., supra note 71, para. 227, and Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas, supra note 71, para. 211. 74 Supra note 12, para. 125.