88 rights treaties (that is, those provisions that state the rights protected), but also to procedural rules.182 106. The Court has pointed out, as the European Court of Human Rights has too, that human rights treaties are live instruments, whose interpretation must go hand in hand with evolving times and current living conditions.183 This evolutive interpretation is consistent with the general rules of interpretation set forth in Article 29 of the American Convention, as well those set forth in the Vienna Convention on Treaty Law.184 In this regard, when interpreting the Convention it is always necessary to choose the alternative that is most favorable to protection of the rights enshrined in said treaty, based on the principle of the rule most favorable to the human being.185 107. While the American Convention itself explicitly refers to the rules of general International Law for its interpretation and application,186 the obligations set forth in Articles 1(1) and 2 of the Convention are ultimately the basis for the establishment of the international responsibility of a State for abridgments to the Convention. Thus, said instrument constitutes lex specialis regarding State responsibility, in view of its special nature as an international human rights treaty vis-à-vis general International Law. Therefore, attribution of international responsibility to the State, as well as the scope and effects of the acknowledgment made in the instant case, must take place in light of the Convention itself. 108. The very origin of said responsibility in fact arises from non-fulfillment of the obligations set forth in Articles 1(1) and 2 of the Convention. In this regard, the Court has pointed out that 181 See Case of the Indigenous Community Yakye Axa, supra note 12, para. 101; Case of Lori Berenson Mejía, supra note 13, para. 220; Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of November 23, 2004. Series C No. 11, para. 69, and Case of Hilaire, Constantine, and Benjamin et al., supra note 180, para. 83. 182 See Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters. Preliminary Objections, supra note 181, para. 69; Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute”, supra note 4, para. 205, Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers. Judgment of July 8, 2004. Series C No. 110, paras. 150 to 151. Likewise, see European Court of Human Rights, Klass and others v. Germany, judgment of 6 September 1978, Series A no. 28, § 34; Permanent Court of Arbitration, Dutch Portuguese Boundaries on the Island of Timor (Arbitral Award of 25 June 1914), The American Journal of International Law, vol. 9, 1915, pp. 250 and 266. 183 See European Court of Human Rights, Tyrer v. The United Kingdom, judgment of 25 April 1978, Series A no. 26, para. 31. 184 See 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 A No. 16, para. 114. Also see, among the adjudicatory cases, Case of the Indigenous Community Yakye Axa, supra note 12; Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers, supra note 182, para. 165; 146; Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez. Interpretation of the Judgment on Preliminary Objections, Merits and Reparations. (Art. 67 American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of November 26, 2003. Series C. No. 102, para. 56; Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community. Judgment of August 31, 2001. Series C No. 79, paras. 146 to 148, and Case of Barrios Altos. Judgment of March 14, 2001. Series C No. 75, paras. 41-44. 185 See Case of Ricardo Canese. Judgment of August 31, 2004. Series C No. 111, para. 181; Case of Herrera Ulloa. Judgment of July 2, 2004. Series C No. 107, para. 184, and Case of Baena Ricardo et al. Judgment of February 2, 2001. Series C No. 72. 186 The preamble of the American Convention explicitly refers to the principles asserted and developed in international instruments, “worldwide as well as regional in scope” (para. 3) and Article 29 requires that it be interpreted in light of the American Declaration and other international acts of the same nature.” Other provisions refer to obligations imposed by international law regarding suspension of guarantees (Article 27), as well as the “generally recognized principles of international law” when defining exhaustion of domestic remedies (Article 46(1)(a)).