5 13. An aspect which in this respect should not pass unnoticed is that derogation measures and limitations must not be inconsistent with the other obligations under international law incumbent upon the State Party concerned: thus, neither derogation clauses, nor limitation provisions, of a given human rights treaty, are to be interpreted to restrict the exercise of any human rights protected to a greater extent by other human rights treaties to which the State Party concerned is also a Party. Such understanding finds support in the rule of international law whereby the interpretation and application of a treaty cannot restrict a State's obligations ensuing from other treaties on the subject - in the present case, human rights protection - to which the State at issue is also a Party. In the present domain, international law has been made use of in order to improve and strengthen - and never to weaken or undermine - the protection of recognised human rights14. 14. The specificity of the international law of human rights finds expression not only in the interpretation of human rights treaties in general but also in the interpretation of specific provisions of those treaties. Pertinent illustrations can be found in, e.g., provisions which contain references to general international law. Such is the case, for example, of the requirement of prior exhaustion of local remedies as a condition of admissibility of complaints or communications under human rights treaties; the local remedies rule bears witness of the interaction between international law and domestic law in the present domain of protection, which is fundamentally victim-oriented, concerned with the rights of individual human beings rather than of States. Generally recognised principles or rules of international law - which the formulation of the local remedies rule in human rights treaties refers to, - besides following an evolution of their own in the distinct contexts in which they apply, necessarily suffer, when inserted in human rights treaties, a certain degree of adjustment or adaptation15, dictated by the special character of the object and purpose of those treaties and by the widely recognised specificity of the international law of human rights16. b) Procedural Issues. 15. Both the European and Inter-American Courts have rightly set limits to State voluntarism, have safeguarded the integrity of the respective human rights Conventions and the primacy of considerations of ordre public over the will of individual States, have set higher standards of State behaviour and established some degree of control over the interposition of undue restrictions by States, and have reassuringly enhanced the position of individuals as subjects of the International Law of Human Rights, with full procedural capacity. In so far as the basis of their jurisdiction in there was no room for implied limitations (limitations implicites); the view has ever since prevailed that the only limitations or restrictions permissible are those for which the human rights treaty itself makes express provision. The obiter dicta of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in its seventh Advisory Opinion, on the Enforceability of the Right to Reply or Correction (1986) reinforce the necessarily restrictive interpretation of restrictions to the exercise of rights recognised in human rights treaties. 14 . Cf. A.A. Cançado Trindade, "Co-existence and Co-ordination of Mechanisms of International Protection of Human Rights (At Global and Regional Levels)", 202 Recueil des Cours de l'Académie de Droit International de La Haye (1987) p. 401. 15 . Cf., e.g., IACtHR, Advisory Opinion n. 11, on Exceptions to the Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies [cf.] (1990). 16 . Cf. A.A. Cançado Trindade, The Application of the Rule of Exhaustion of Local Remedies in International Law, Cambridge, University Press, 1983, pp. 1-443.