65. Given the proportions, I would expect a similar scenario in the inter-American context. In the area of rulings on constitutionality handed down by the supreme constitutional courts of the nations of the Americas, a review of compliance with human rights conventions is also exercised, given existing integration between the constitutional orders of the states Parties to the Convention and the inter-American order established under its Ius Constitucionale Commune governing the protection of human rights in our continent. It is impossible to think of the protection of human rights in the states of the Americas without considering the existing synergy and dialogue between nations and the inter-American regional bloc,47 all centered, in the end, around the American Convention and imbued with the pro persona principle. 66. I also believe that the arguments of coherence and integrity underlying the reiteration of the Court’s case law on Article 26 of the Convention are matched to the reality of transconstitutionalism. The fact of sharing objectives and problems between national courts (constitutional law) and international courts (international human rights law) has given rise to an irreversible process of converging agendas and reciprocal influence. 67. This movement has been recognized by illustrious judges of this InterAmerican Court. In 2007, Judge Cançado Trindade noted that by the middle of the 20th century, there was already talk of the “internationalization” of constitutional law and, at the turn of the 20th century, there was talk of the “constitutionalization” of international law. Both processes have fostered interaction between national legal systems and the international legal system in the protection of human rights.48 68. In this same sense, in his dissenting opinion in the case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores v. Mexico (2010), Judge Mac-Gregor recalled that concepts of constitutional law had been assimilated from the origin and during the development of international human rights law.49 When analyzing the mechanisms for review of compliance with human rights conventions, which echo national mechanisms of constitutional oversight, the judge described this dynamic of approximation between international human rights law and constitutional law as the “internationalization” of constitutional categories. In the same vein, in a 2013 academic publication, Judge Pedro Nikken50 pointed out that international human rights law tends to permeate constitutional law and originates from it. 69. As can be clearly seen, the interaction between the constitutional and conventional orders takes on special characteristics in the Latin American context as a result of the historical evolution of the constitutions of the countries that make up the region and as a result of the development of the IAHRS, which derives from the singular constitutional trajectory of the countries that compose it. 70. This dynamic of interaction is the objective of the so-called Ius Constitucionale Commune in Latin America, indicative of the existence of a "Latin American network Cf. CYRILLO, Carolina; FUENTES-CONTRERAS, Édgar Hernán; LEGALE, Siddharta. “The InterAmerican Rule of Law in South American constitutionalism.” In: Sequência (Florianópolis), vol. 42, no. 88, pg. (1-27), 2021. pg. 19-20. 47 Cf. Case of the Dismissed Congressional Employees (Aguado - Alfaro et al.) v. Peru. Interpretation of Judgment of Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 30, 2007, Series C No. 174. Separate opinion of Judge Cançado Trindade, para. 6-7. 48 Cf. Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores v. Mexico. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 26, 2010. Series C No. 220. Separate opinion of Judge Eduardo Ferrer Mac-Gregor Poisot, para. 21. 49 NIKKEN, Pedro. “El Derecho Internacional de los Derechos Humanos en el derecho interno.” Revista IIDH, vol. 57, (pgs. (11-68), 2013. pg. 42-43. 50 13