23. This Court recalls that it has established that it is not only the elimination or enactment of norms of domestic law that guarantees the rights contained in the American Convention, pursuant to the obligation contained in Article 2 of this instrument. This also calls for the implementation of State practices resulting in the effective observance of the rights and freedoms recognized in the Convention. Consequently, the existence of a norm does not, in itself, guarantee that it will be applied adequately. The application of the norms or their interpretation, as jurisdictional practices and expressions of the legal system, must be adapted to the end sought by Article 2 of the Convention. In other words, the Court emphasizes that judges and organs for the administration of justice at all levels are obliged to exercise ex officio a control of conformity between domestic norms and the American Convention; evidently, within the framework of their respective spheres of competence and the corresponding procedural rules. In this task, they must take into account not only the international treaty concerned, but also its interpretation by the Inter-American Court, ultimate interpreter of the American Convention. 25 24. In this regard, the Court recalls that, when monitoring compliance in the case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico, it took note of the constitutional reform of June 10, 2011, under which it was established in article 1 of the Mexican Constitution that “[h]uman rights norms shall be interpreted pursuant to the Constitution and the relevant international treaties, at all times providing the individual with the broadest protection.” 26 In this regard, this Court emphasizes the argument of the State that, “in parallel to the secondary legislation, the constitutional reform concerning human rights guarantees the prevalence of the practical effects of the Judgment” in this case, inasmuch as the said reform “results in the obligation of the electoral tribunals to interpret the politico-electoral rights of the citizen in keeping with the pro persona principle” and to carry out a control of conformity with the Convention ex officio in specific cases. 25. In addition, this Court has examined a “Decision of the Court in Plenary” issued by the Supreme Court on June 14, 2011, in case file “Various 912/2010.” 27 In this decision, the Supreme Court stated that the Judiciary was obliged to exercise a control of conformity of domestic norms with the American Convention ex officio, and that, to this end, it must take into account the framework of article 1 of the Mexican Constitution, which, since the 2011 reform, establishes the obligation to interpret human rights norms in keeping with the pro persona principle (supra considering paragraph 24). In addition, the said decision indicates that the rulings of the Inter-American Court with regard to Mexico “are binding for all the organs [of the State …] within their respective spheres of competence […]. Consequently, not only the specific operative paragraphs of the Judgment, but also all the criteria contained in the Judgment deciding this litigation are binding for the Judiciary. Moreover, it shall be considered that the remainder of the Inter-American Court’s case law, resulting from the 25 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 Cabrera García and Montiel Flores v. Mexico. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 26, 2010. Series C No. 220, para. 225; Case of Gelman v. Uruguay. Merits and reparations. Judgment of February 24, 2011. Series C No. 222, para. 193, and Case of Gelman v. Uruguay. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of March 20, 2013, sixty-sixth considering paragraph. 26 Cf. Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 14, 2013, fifth considering paragraph. 27 In the private session held by the Justices on September 20, 2011, unanimously, by all 11 votes, the text of the addition to the case file “Various 912/2010” was approved. Available at: http://fueromilitar.scjn.gob.mx/Resoluciones/Varios_912_2010.pdf. Cf. Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 14, 2013, fifth considering paragraph. 10