respective State’s exclusive, internal or domestic jurisdiction applies, 23 a principle expressly established in the OAS Charter24 and indirectly in the Convention.25 In this regard, it should be recalled that the theory of implicit powers, which establishes the principle that the international organization concerned must be deemed to have those powers that are essential to the performance of its duties, even if they not provided for in the convention on which it is based26 – which is expressed by the competence-competence principle27 – is applied to the Court only when it is necessary for the exercise of its competence, expressly conferred by the Convention, to hear a case or to issue advisory opinions, and not with regard to the possible exercise of powers that are totally unnecessary for this purpose. 13. Therefore, on the one hand, the Court must proceed in keeping only with what the Convention effectively establishes and not with what it would like it to establish and, on the other hand, it must avoid modifying the Convention, which is a power explicitly assigned to its States Parties.28 Consequently, if the Court does not agree with what the article of the Convention establishes, it should not try to exercise the international legislative function that is the responsibility of the States, but rather advise them of the need to amend the norm in question. Thus, the new provision that possibly results from the exercise of that function by the States will clearly enjoy a broader and more solid democratic legitimacy. 14. It is based on all the above that, strictly speaking, the Court is not responsible for promoting and defending human rights, which is the function that the Convention expressly assigned to the Commission,29 which could be categorized as an activist, understanding this “The question whether a certain matter is or is not solely within the jurisdiction of a State is an essentially relative question; it depends upon the development of international relations. Thus, in the present state of international law, questions of nationality are, in the opinion of the Court, in principle within this reserved domain.” Permanent Court of International Justice, Advisory Opinion on Nationality Decrees issued in Tunisia and Morocco (French zone), Series B No. 4, p.24. 23 Protocol No. 15 amending the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, “Art.1: At the end of the preamble to the Convention, a new recital shall be added, which shall read as follows: “Affirming that the High Contracting Parties, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, have the primary responsibility to secure the rights and freedoms defined in this Convention and the Protocols thereto, and that in doing so they enjoy a margin of appreciation, subject to the supervisory jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights established by this Convention.” Art. 1(2): “The Organization of American States has no powers other than those expressly conferred upon it by this Charter, none of whose provisions authorizes it to intervene in matters that are within the internal jurisdiction of the Member States.” 24 Art. 31: “Recognition of Other Rights. Other rights and freedoms recognized in accordance with the procedures established in Articles 76 and 77 may be included in the system of protection of this Convention. 25 Art. 76(1): Proposals to amend this Convention may be submitted to the General Assembly for the action it deems appropriate by any State Party directly, and by the Commission or the Court through the Secretary General. Art. 77(1): “In accordance with Article 31, any State Party and the Commission may submit proposed protocols to this Convention for consideration by the States Parties at the General Assembly with a view to gradually including other rights and freedoms within its system of protection. “Under international law, the Organization must be deemed to have those powers which, though not expressly provided in the Charter, are conferred upon it by necessary implication as being essential to the performance of its duties.” ICJ, “Reparation of Injuries Suffered in Service of the United Nations,” pp. 9-12. 26 Cf. Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Case of Jenkins v. Argentina. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 26, 2019. Series C No. 397, para. 31. 27 28 Supra, footnote 25. Art. 41: ““The main function of the Commission shall be to promote respect for and defense of human rights. In the exercise of its mandate, it shall have the following functions and powers: 29 (a) to develop an awareness of human rights among the peoples of America; 5