25 distinct order, with whose application they coincide, or completely devoid of connection to them. The foregoing is based on the assumption that many States with whom this Court relates with actively participate both in the Inter-American System, as well as the Universal System of Human Rights, and that, naturally, have their own constitutional procedural systems for the protection of fundamental rights. 81. This interaction has been recognized by the Inter-American Court through the concept of the corpus juris of international human rights law, which is comprised of a set of international instruments of varied content and juridical effects (treaties, conventions, resolutions and declarations). For the Inter-American Tribunal, its dynamic evolution has had a positive impact on international law in affirming and developing up the latter’s faculty for regulating relations between States and the human beings within their respective jurisdictions.128 82. As a result, Article 25 of the American Convention establishes the right to an effective judicial remedy, which may be the remedy of amparo or another remedy of a similar nature and equal scope for those rights that cannot be heard by the courts using the amparo remedy;129 on the other hand, by virtue of Article 29 of the Convention, which requires a more favorable or extensive interpretation, based on the pro persona principle, the rights protected by Article 25 are those included in the corpus juris. Of course, this protection should be executed taking into consideration the different powers of each judicial organism, which requires that the control for conformity with the Convention that is exercised be of varying intensity.130 83. Article 25 of the American Convention, which establishes the right to judicial protection, clearly has a procedural dimension as well, as it stipulates the right to a guarantee, an instrument to assert rights; in this case, the existence of a recourse with certain characteristics that must be established and effectively comply with the obligations of Articles 1(1) and 2 of the Convention. However, on the other hand, this recourse must “protect all persons” against acts that violate their rights from various sources. Hence, from this, one can actually see that, in reality, this dimension of Article 25 makes it so the right to an effective judicial remedy is really a genuine substantive right of the guarantee of rights, which depends upon nothing less than the effectiveness of the fundamental rights, whether they be of a constitutional or conventional source. 84. It is important to note here that, just as is stated in the Judgment in the present case, “the American Convention does not impose a specific model for the regulation of issues of constitutionality and control for conformity with the Convention.”131 In any event, the Inter-American Court has repeatedly held that the important thing is that the treaty be granted a “useful purpose.” That is, that it be respected and guaranteed in the manner in which the State Parties consider it most pertinent. The integrative dimension of 128 Cf. Juridical Condition and Rights of the Undocumented Migrant. Advisory Opinion OC-18/03 of September 17, 2003. Series to No. 18, para. 120; and Cf. The Right to Information on Consular Assistance in the Framework of the Guarantees of the Due Process of Law. Advisory Opinion OC-16/99 of October 1, 1999. Series to No. 16, para. 115. 129 Cf. Case of Castañeda Gutman V. México. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 6, 2008. Series C No. 184, para. 92. 130 In regard to the various intensities of “control of conformity with the Convention,” see the Opinion in the Order of Compliance of the Judgment. Case of Gelman V. Uruguay. Order of March 20, 2013. 131 Para. 124 of the Judgment.