87 respect to matters relating to the fulfillment of the commitments made by the States Parties.336 229. Moreover, the Constitutional Tribunal of Peru has sustained that: The binding nature of the judgments of the [Inter-American Court] does not end with the operative paragraphs (which, certainly, applies only to the State party to the proceeding), but it also extends to its grounds or ratio decidendi; moreover, in view of the [Fourth Final and Transitory Disposition (CDFT)] of the Constitution and article V of the Preliminary Title of the [Constitutional Procedural Code], the judgment is binding on all national government, including in those cases in which the Peruvian State is not a state party to the proceeding. In fact, in view of the Inter-American Court’s capacity to interpret and apply the Convention, enshrined in article 62(3) of said treaty, coupled with the mandate of the CDFT of the Constitution, the interpretation made in a proceeding of all the provisions of the Convention is binding for all domestic government, including, of course, this Tribunal.337 230. Said Tribunal has also established that: from the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and this Constitutional Tribunal, it springs a direct connection; a connection that has two aspects: on the one hand, a restorative aspect, since once the violated fundamental right has been interpreted in light of the decisions of the Court, it is possible to provide an adequate and effective protection; and, on the other hand, a preventive aspect, given that, through its observance, it is possible to avoid the harmful institutional consequences derived from the condemnatory judgments of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights for the legal certainty of the Peruvian State.338 231. The Supreme Court of Justice of Argentina has mentioned that the decisions of the Inter-American Court “are binding for the Argentine State (art. 68(1), American Convention),” therefore, said Court has established that “in principle, the content of its decisions must be subordinated to the decisions of said international tribunal.”339 Likewise, said Supreme Court established that “the interpretation of the American Convention on Human Rights must be made following the case law of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights" given that "it deals with an inescapable pattern of interpretation for the Argentine constitutional branches of government within the realm of its competence and, in consequence, also for the Supreme Court of Justice, in order to safeguard the obligations assumed by the Argentine State in the Inter-American system of Protection of Human Rights.”340 232. Moreover, the Constitutional Court of Colombia has determined that, in light of the fact that the Colombian Constitution provides that the constitutional rights and duties must be interpreted “according to the international human rights 336 Resolution N° 1920-2003 issued on November 13, 2003 by the Supreme Court of Justice of the Dominican Republic. 337 Judgment handed down on July 21, 2006 by the Constitutional Tribunal of Peru (case file N° 2730-2006-PA/TC), Ground 12. 338 Judgment 00007-2007-PI/TC issued on June 19, 2007 by the Full Constitutional Tribunal of Peru (Colegio de Abogados del Callao v. Congreso de la República), ground 26. 339 Judgment issued on December 23, 2004 by the Surpeme Court of Justice of the Republic of Argentina (Case file 224.XXXIX), “Esposito, Miguel Angel s/ motion of statute of limitation of the criminal proceeding brought by his defense,” considering clause 6. 340 Judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice of Argentina, Mazzeo, Julio Lilo et al., Appeal for annulment and constitutional motion. M. 2333. XLII et al. of July 13, 2007, para. 20