and nowhere has or contemplates that the penalty for that offense may be imposed by an administrative body, whence it follows that, in any way, is directly or indirectly, an amendment or interpretation of the provisions of the Convention, but precisely the opposite. 4.- Object and purpose. Finally, if one considers the "object and purpose" of the Convention, namely the commitments of due respect and protection of human rights which States parties undertake, 23 one can not but conclude that what is intended by Article 23(2) is, therefore, to restrict or regulate as little as possible the rights and opportunities set forth in Article 23(1), including the right to be elected or the right of passive suffrage,24 and it is for this reason that, under this perspective, the same conclusion is made as in the Judgment that, incidentally, agrees with the principle of pro homine established in Article 29 of the Convention,25 which requires interpretation in favor of broader respect for human rights. 5.- Supplementary means. Now, considering the foresaid, and also, that neither are the supplementary means mentioned in the record, but neither are grounds provided to obtain them, there is no reference regarding the supplementary means of interpretation under the Vienna Convention26 that could alter the conclusion which the Judgment has so provided. Conclusion. Thus, in the latter, Article 23(2) has been interpreted and applied, as provided in Article 63(1) of the Convention, 27 concluding that both Article 105 of the LOCGRSNCF as well as that stated in protection of this by the Comptroller General of the Republic of does not extradite such person to another country on the ground of the nationality of the alleged criminal. 4. This Convention does not preclude the application of any other rule of criminal jurisdiction established by a State Party under its domestic law.” 23 Art. 1(1) of the Convention: “The States Parties to this Convention undertake to respect the rights and freedoms recognized herein and to ensure to all persons subject to their jurisdiction the free and full exercise of those rights and freedoms, without any discrimination for reasons of race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, economic status, birth, or any other social condition.” 24 See paragraph 107 of the Judgment. 25 “No provision of this Convention shall be interpreted as: a. permitting any State Party, group, or person to suppress the enjoyment or exercise of the rights and freedoms recognized in this Convention or to restrict them to a greater extent than is provided for herein.” 26 Art. 32: “Recourse may be had to supplementary means of interpretation, including the preparatory work of the treaty and the circumstances of its conclusion, in order to confirm the meaning resulting from the application of article 31, or to determine the meaning when the interpretation according to article 31: (a) leaves the meaning ambiguous or obscure; or (b) leads to a result which is manifestly absurd or unreasonable.” 27 “If the Court finds that there has been a violation of a right or freedom protected by this Convention, the Court shall rule that the injured party be ensured the enjoyment of his right or freedom that was violated. It shall also rule, if appropriate, that the consequences of the measure or situation that constituted the breach of such right or freedom be remedied and that fair compensation be paid to the injured party.” 4