24 relation to the facts of this case,123 the Court takes into account the important evolution of the regulations and principles of International Refugee Law, also established in the guidelines, standards and other authorized decisions of bodies such as the UNHCR. 124 In this sense, although the obligations contained in Articles 1(1) and 2 of the Convention constitute the basis for determining a State's international responsibility for violations thereof,125 the Convention itself expressly refers to the rules of general International Law for its interpretation and application. 126 Thus, upon determining the compatibility of the actions and omissions of the State or of its norms, with the Convention or other treaties applicable to its jurisdiction, the Court can interpret the rights and obligations contained therein in light of other treaties and relevant norms. In this case, using the sources, principles, and standards of international refugee law and special applicable regulations127 to situations that determine refugee status of a person and their correlative rights, in a manner that is complimentary to the norms of the Convention, the Court is not assuming the existence of a hierarchy between the normative orders. 80. If the Inter-American Court were to ignore the plethora of existing approaches with respect to a single topic, emanating normatively from different international treaties and functionally from different international mechanisms, it would not only be impossible to speak of a jurisprudential dialogue – which constitutes an integrative element of rights itself, - it would also make it extremely complicated for the States to comply with their international obligations, if such duties were downright contradictory with norms of a 123 Cf. Mutatis mutandi, Case of Santo Domingo Massacre V. Colombia. Preliminary Objections, Merits and Reparations. Judgment of November 30, 2012. Series C No. 259, para. 255; and mutatis mutandi Case of Atala Riffo and Girls V. Chile. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 24, 2012. Series C No. 239, para. 83. 124 The States Parties to the Convention of 1951 and the Protocol of 1967 have conferred monitoring of compliance to the UNHCR, established in the Preamble itself of the Convention (para. 6th), to promote and assure compliance of the principle legal instruments of the protection of refugees. Cf. Executive Committee of the Program of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Note on International Protection, 51st period of sessions, July 7, 2000, A/AC.96/930, available at: http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/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, pursuant to Article 35 of the Convention of 1951, Article II of Protocol of 1967 and paragraph 8 of the Statute of the Office of the UNHCR. Moreover, in relation to the Manual of Procedures and Standards to Determine Refugee Status of the UNHCR, the expert witness Juan Carlos Murillo stated that “in 1978 when the Manual was adopted [...] it was drafted because the UNHCR Executive Committee in 1977 called the office to assist States in the interpretation of the provisions of the 1951 Convention. As such, it is an interpretive guide of a non-binding nature. However, in the UNHCR's history, after more than sixty years overseeing the implementation of the Convention and the Protocol on the Status of Refugees, many countries, including many of the Latin American countries have included specific reference to the Manual as an interpretive guide, that is, that it has sufficient authority to serve as interpretative guidance to the States. and therefore although it is not binding, many countries have fully incorporated it into their domestic legislation each time they have to determine refugee status." Cf. Expert statement rendered by Juan Carlos Murillo before the Inter-American Court in public hearing held on june 20, 2012. 125 Case of the Mapiripan Massacre V. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 134, para. 107. 126 In this sense, the preamble itself of the American Convention refers expressly to the principles reaffirmed and developed in international instruments, “both in the universal as well as regional sphere” (para. 3) and Article 29 requires its interpretation heeding to the American Declaration “and other international acts of the same nature.” Other norms refer to obligations imposed by international law in relation to the suspension of guarantees (Article 27), as well as to “generally recognized principles of International Law” in definition of the exhaustion of domestic remedies (Article 46(1)((a). 127 In this sense, that express mutatis mutandi in the Case of the Mapiripan Massacre V. Colombia is applicable in that, “with regard to establishment of the international responsibility of the State in the instant case, the Court cannot set aside the existence of general and special duties of the State to protect the civilian population, derived from International Humanitarian Law, specifically Article 3 common of the August 12, 1949 Geneva Agreements and the provisions of the additional Protocol to the Geneva Agreements regarding protection of the victims of non-international armed conflicts (Protocol II).” Case of the Mapiripan Massacre V. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 134, para. 114.