I. The friendly settlement agreement and the Court’s judgments A. The friendly settlement agreement Article 63 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court2 (hereinafter “the Rules of Procedure”), refers to the friendly settlement agreement as follows: “When the Commission, the victims or alleged victims, or their representatives, the respondent State or, if applicable, the petitioning State in a case before the Court inform it of the existence of a friendly settlement, compromise, or any other occurrence likely to lead to a settlement of the dispute, the Court shall rule upon its admissibility and juridical effects at the appropriate procedural time.” This provision reveals that the friendly settlement agreement does not end the proceedings, but may merely make a contribution towards its settlement. Furthermore, it is not binding on the Court, because it is the Court that must decide on its validity and its legal effects. In other words, the Court can endorse it, reject it, amend it or complement it. In addition, the Court may do this when it considers opportune and, in any case, before delivering judgment or in the judgment. In this regard, it should be recalled, first, that Article 64 of the Rules of Procedure add that: “Bearing in mind its responsibility to protect human rights, the Court may decide to continue the consideration of a case notwithstanding the existence of the conditions indicated in the preceding articles.” Second, it with those 69 of the settlement should be considered that both these regulatory provisions are in keeping relating to the judgments of the Court (Chapter VII: Judgments, Arts. 65 to Rules of Procedure), and it has not been established that the friendly agreement substitutes a judgment. And, it is precisely on this basis that the agreement in this case indicates that the Court will be asked to endorse it “when delivering its judgment that ends this litigation” (para. 17) and that this is what the Court has done, complementing it in accordance with the corresponding justification (paras. 22 and 78). B. The Judgment of the Court For its part, Article 63(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights3 (hereinafter “the Convention”) refers to the Court’s judgments as follows: “If the Court finds that there has been a violation of a right or freedom protected by this Convention, the Court shall rule that the injured party be ensured the enjoyment of his right or freedom that was violated. It shall also 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.” Evidently, since this is a treaty-based norm, it ranks higher than the statutory and regulatory norms, so that the latter must be consistent with it. Accordingly, by endorsing the friendly settlement agreement, as in this case, its content becomes part of the respective judgment of the Court, which is “final and not subject to 2 Approved by the Court at its eighty-fifth regular session held from November 16 to 28, 2009. 3 Approved on November 22, 1969, at the Inter-American Specialized Conference on Human Rights, San José, Costa Rica, entering into force on July 18, 1978, and currently ratified by 24 States. 2