why ‘it takes into account the conclusions drawn by [...] bodies” like the “Committee on Freedom of Association and [...] the Committee of Experts of the International Labour Organization (hereinaf ter also “ILO”). 22. Moreover, along the judgment, the Court uses the sources, principles and criteria of the international corpus iuris which include the ILO Conventions and the conclusions drawn by the Committee on Freedom of Association and the Committee of Experts of the International Labour Organization, as applicable norm to determine the content of the economic, social, cultural and environmental rights (hereinaf ter, also “ESCER”) protected by article 26 of the Convention. To this end, in paragraphs 100, 101 and 103 of the judgment, the Court stated the f ollowing: 100. Regarding the scope of Article 26 of the American Convention in relation to Article s 1(1) and 2 thereof, this Court has understood that the Convention incorporates the so -called economic, social, cultural and environmental rights (ESCER) into its catalog of protected rights, derived from the norms recognized in the Charter of the Organization of American States (OAS), as well as the rules of interpretation set forth in Article 29 of the Convention. This instrument prevents the limitation or exclusion of the enjoyment of the rights e sta b lis hed in the American Declaration, including those recognized in domestic law. Likewise, in accordanc e with a systematic, teleological and evolving interpretation, the Court has drawn on the international and national corpus iuris on the matter to give specific content to the s c o p e o f the rights protected by the Convention, in order to determine the scope of the specific obligations of each right. 101. Accordingly, the Court uses the sources, principles and criteria of the international corpus iuris as special applicable norms to determine the content of the ESCER protected by Article 26 of the Convention. The Court has also indicated that the aforementioned no r ms a r e us ed t o determine the rights in question as a complement to the provisions of the Convention. Thus, it has repeatedly affirmed that it is not assuming jurisdiction over treaties in which it has no ne; nor is it granting conventional rank to norms contained in other national or international instruments related to ESCER. On the contrary, the Court makes an interpretation in accordance with the guidelines set forth in Article 29 and in line with its case law, which allows it to update the significance of the rights derived from the OAS Charter that are recognized b y Article 26 of the Convention. 103. The Court also reiterates that human rights treaties are living instruments, the interpretation of which must evolve with the times and with current living conditions. This evolutive interpretation is consistent with the general rules of treaty interpretation establishe d in Article 29 of the American Convention, and in the Vienna Convention. Furthermore, the third paragraph of Article 31 of the Vienna Convention authorizes the use of interpr eta tive m ea ns such as agreements or the relevant rules or practice of international law that States have expressed on the subject matter of the treaty, which are some of the methods r ela ted to a n evolving view of the Treaty. Thus, in order to determine the scope of the rights der ived f r o m the economic, social, educational, scientific and cultural norms contained in the OAS C ha rte r, the Court refers to the relevant instruments of the international corpus iuris. 23. The Court recalls that the parties must consider the judgment as a whole and each paragraph in light of the rest rather than interpreting paragraphs in isolation6. The Court considers that the above passages are suf f iciently clear and precise as to the interpretation guidelines f ollowed by this Court. Theref ore, the Court declares the State’s request is inadmissible in this regard, given that the purpose of a request f or interpretation must be to clarif y an imprecise or ambiguous aspect about the meaning of scope of the judgment, which has not been the case. V. Cf. Case of Pollo Rivera et al v. Perú. Request for Interpretation of the judgment on merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 25, 2017. Series C No. 335, para. 26, a nd C as e o f C a sa Nina v . Perú. Interpretation of the judgment of preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs , supra para. 33. 6 6