authorized rulings of agencies such as UNHCR.177 Thus, even though the obligations contained in Articles 1(1) and 2 of the Convention ultimately constitute the grounds for determining the international responsibility of a State for violations of this instrument, 178 the Convention itself makes explicit reference to the norms of international law for its interpretation and application.179 Thus, when determining the compatibility of the acts and omissions of the State, or of its norms, with the Convention or other treaties over which it has competence, the Court may interpret the obligations and rights contained in them in light of other pertinent treaties and norms. Thus, by using the sources, principles and criteria of international refugee law as a special normative180 applicable to situations concerning the determination of the refugee status of a person and their corresponding rights in a way that is complementary to the provisions of the Convention, the Court is not assuming a ranking between norms. B.2.a) Determination of refugee status 144. Under article 1 of the 1951 Convention, modified by the 1967 Protocol, a refugee is a person who: • • • owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it. 145. According to the 1951 Convention, a person is a refugee as soon as he meets the criteria contained in the definition. This would necessarily occur prior to the time at which his refugee status is formally determined. Recognition of his refugee status does not therefore make him a 177 The States parties to the 1951 Convention and its 1967 Protocol conferred on UNHCR the responsibility for supervising these instruments, included in the Preamble to the Convention (para. 6), in order to promote the main international instruments for the protection of refugees and to supervise their application. Cf. Executive Committee of the High Commissioner’s Programme, Note on International Protection, fifty-first session, 7 July 5 2000, A/AC.96/930, available at: http://www.unhcr.org/3ae68d6c4.html, para. 20. This function coexists with the corresponding obligation of the States to cooperate with the UNHCR in the exercise of this function, according to article 35 of the 1951 Convention, article II of the 1967 Protocol, and paragraph 8 of the Statute of the Office of the UNHCR. Also, in relation to the UNHCR Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status under the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees, expert witness Juan Carlos Murillo stated that “in 1978 when the Handbook was adopted […] this was done because, in 1977, the UNHCR Executive Committee asked the Office to help the States interpret the provisions of the 1951 Convention. As such, it is a non-binding guide to interpretation. However, in the history of the UNHCR, after more than 60 years supervising the application of the Convention and the Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees, many countries, including many of the countries of Latin America, have included a specific reference to the Handbook as a guide to interpretation; in other words, it has sufficient authority to serve as a guide to interpretation for the States. Consequently, even though it is not binding, many countries have incorporated it fully into their domestic laws, whenever they have to determine refugee status.” Cf. Expert opinion provided by Juan Carlos Murillo before the Inter-American Court at the public hearing held on June 20, 2012. 178 Case of the Mapiripán Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs, para. 107. 179 Thus, the preamble to the American Convention makes express reference to the principles reaffirmed and refined in other international instruments, “worldwide as well as regional in scope” (para. 3) and Article 29 makes it obligatory to interpret it in keeping with the American Declaration “and other international acts of the same nature.” Other articles refer to obligations imposed by international law in relation to the suspension of guarantees (Article 27), as well as to the “generally recognized principles of international law” in the definition of the exhaustion of domestic remedies (Article 46(1)(a)). 180 In this regard, mutatis mutandi, the words of the Case of the Mapiripán Massacre v. Colombia are applicable, that, “when proceeding to determine the international responsibility of the State in this case, the Court cannot ignore the existence of the State’s general and special obligations of protection for the civilian population arising from international humanitarian law, in particular Article 3 common to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and the provisions of the Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions and relating to the Protection of Victims of Noninternational Armed Conflicts (Protocol II).” Case of the Mapiripán Massacre v. Colombia, para. 114. 47