as” or "among others." But they did not do so. On the other hand, there is no indication in the record indicating that upon establishing Article 23(2), the intent or aim was to include other types of proceedings or courts that are not criminal. 3.- The context of the terms. It is also not in the record that there was an agreement between the States Parties to the Convention related or linked to Article 23(2) or made in regard to this,15 or subsequently, interpreting it, 16 nor is there evidence of an ulterior motive for which said agreement stands 17 and that would support a different interpretation to that provided in the Judgment. It is important to note, in this regard, that the fact that in the legislations of some States Parties to the Convention, they provide that a noncriminal body may impose the sanction of disqualification from being elected, 18 in this way reflecting that it is a practice that "establishes the agreement of the parties regarding its interpretation." First, because it involves the legislation of only some of the States Parties to the Convention, and therefore, insufficient to assume a widespread practice in the field. Second, because it does not provide anything to suggest that, in dictating those laws, the purpose was to comply with that provided in the Convention. And third, since, pursuant to the Law of Treaties, practice does not imply the modification of a treaty. 19 It follows to note that it is not appropriate to invoke20 what has been done in the record of the Inter-American Convention Against Corruption,21 to argue that it is possible to interpret Article 23(2) of the Convention in such a way that it allow the regulation of the exercise of political rights through a sentence imposed by an administrative authority. This is because what is that instrument provides for the obligation of States Parties to it to criminalize acts of corruption and even refers to criminal jurisdiction, 22 15 Art. 31(2). of the Vienna Convention: “The context for the purpose of the interpretation of a treaty shall comprise, in addition to the text, including its preamble and annexes: (a) any agreement relating to the treaty which was made between all the parties in connection with the conclusion of the treaty; (b) any instrument which was made by one or more parties in connection with the conclusion of the treaty and accepted by the other parties as an instrument related to the treaty.” 16 Art. 31(3)(a) of the same Convention: “There shall be taken into account, together with the context: (a) any subsequent agreement between the parties regarding the interpretation of the treaty or the application of its provisions;” 17 Art. 31(3)(b) “There shall be taken into account, together with the context …(b) any subsequent practice in the application of the treaty which establishes the agreement of the parties regarding its interpretation;” 18 See paragraph 103 of this Judgment. 19 Note that draft article 38 of the Vienna Convention, which provided "A treaty may be modified by subsequent practice in the application of the treaty when ... it denotes the agreement of the parties to amend the provisions of the treaty" was suppressed by a majority of the States participating in the Conference which adopted the Vienna Convention. 20 Art. 31(3)(c) of the Vienna Convention:”There shall be taken into account, together with the context …(c) “any relevant rules of international law applicable in the relations between the parties..” 21 See paragraph 103 of this Judgment. 22 Article V: “Jurisdiction. 1. Each State Party shall adopt such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over the offenses it has established in accordance with this Convention when the offense in question is committed in its territory. 2. Each State Party may adopt such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over the offenses it has established in accordance with this Convention when the offense is committed by one of its nationals or by a person who habitually resides in its territory.3. Each State Party shall adopt such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over the offenses it has established in accordance with this Convention when the alleged criminal is present in its territory and it 3