27 106. With respect to the scope of international responsibility on this subject, the Court has said that: The observance by State agents or officials of a law which violates the Convention gives rise to the international liability of such State, as contemplated in International Human Rights Law, in the sense that every State is internationally responsible for the acts or omissions of any of its powers or bodies for the violation of internationally protected rights, pursuant to Article 1.1 of the American Convention. 107. The Commission recognizes that domestic judges and courts are bound to respect the rule of law, and therefore, they are bound to apply the provisions in force within the legal system. But when a State has ratified an international treaty such as the American Convention, its judges, as part of the State, are also bound by such Convention. This forces them to see that all the effects of the provisions embodied in the Convention are not adversely affected by the enforcement of laws which are contrary to its purpose and that do not have any legal effects since their inception. In other words, the Judiciary must exercise a sort of "consistency control" between the domestic legal provisions which are applied to specific cases and the American Convention on Human Rights. To perform this task, the Judiciary has to take into account not only the treaty, but also the interpretation thereof made by the Inter-American Court, which is the ultimate interpreter of the American Convention.75 108. In this report, the Commission concludes that the Argentine State violated the right to appeal a judgment to the detriment of Mr. Mohamed, because it did not afford him a remedy for comprehensive review of his conviction by the Chamber of Appeals, revoking the acquittal at the first instance in violation of Article 8.2.h of the Convention. 109. The absence of an effective remedy for review in accordance with the parameters established in this report is a violation of the State’s duty to adopt provisions of domestic law as established in Article 2 of the American Convention.76 Case of Fermín Ramírez. Judgment of June 20, 2005. Series C No. 126, paras. 97 and 130. 72 I/A Court H. R., Case of Zambrano Vélez et al. Judgment of July 4, 2004. Series C No. 166, para. 57; Case of Yatama. Judgment of June 23, 2005. Series C No. 127, para. 254. 73 I/A Court H. R., Case of Zambrano Vélez et al. Judgment of July 4, 2004. Series C No. 166, para. 57; Case of Raxcacó Reyes. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 133, paras. 87 and 125. 74 Inter-American Court, Case of Zambrano Vélez et al. Judgment of July 4, 2004. Series C No. 166, para. 57; Case of La Cantuta. Judgment of November 29, 2006. Series C No. 162, para. 172. 075 I/A Court H. R., Case of La Cantuta. Judgment of November 29, 2006. Series C No. 162, para. 173; Case of Almonacid Arellano et al. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 154, paras. 123 to 125. 76 On the violation of Article 2 of the Convention despite the fact that laws inconsistent with the Convention were repealed before the Court rendered its judgment, see I/A Court H. R., Case of Montero Aranguren et al. (Detention Center of Catia). Judgment of July 5, 2006. Series C No. 150, para. 135.