33 When a State has ratified an international treaty such as the American Convention, all of its bodies, including its judges, are also subject to such a treaty, and this obligates them to ensure that the effects of the provisions of the Convention are not diminished by the application of norms contrary to its object and purpose. The Judicial Branch must exercise “control of conformity with the Convention” ex officio of the harmonization of the domestic norms with the American Convention, evidently within the framework of their respective jurisdictions and the corresponding procedural rules. In this task, the Judicial Branch should bear in mind not only the treaty, but also the corresponding interpretation made by the Inter-American Court, the final 122 interpreter of the American Convention. 127. In this respect, the Inter-American Commission observes that in the instant case the domestic courts breached their obligation to bring the provisions of domestic law into line with the requirements of the American Convention, in particular in relation to the right to equality before the law, when they examined the domestic provisions related to the punishment of acts of homosexuality in the Ecuadorian Armed Forces. 128. In view of the foregoing considerations, the Commission concludes that the Ecuadorian State violated the right enshrined in Article 24 of the American Convention in relation to the general obligations established in Articles 1(1) and 2 of the same instrument to the detriment of Mr. Homero Flor. 3. Right to a Fair Trial and Judicial Protection (Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention) a. Preliminary considerations on the application of judicial guarantees to disciplinary proceedings against members of the military 129. Article 8(1) of the American Convention establishes that: Every person has the right to a hearing, with due guarantees and within a reasonable time, by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal, previously established by law, in the substantiation of any accusation of a criminal nature made against him or for the determination of his rights and obligations of a civil, labor, fiscal, or any other nature. 130. Article 25(1) of the American Convention provides: Everyone has the right to simple and prompt recourse, or any other effective recourse, to a competent court or tribunal for protection against acts that violate his fundamental rights recognized by the constitution or laws of the state concerned or by this Convention, even though such violation may have been committed by persons acting in the course of their official duties. 131. 122 The Inter-American Court has held: I/A Court H.R. Case of Gelman v. Uruguay. Merits and Reparations. Judgment of February 24, 2011 Series C No. 221, para. 193; I/A Court H.R. Case of Almonacid Arellano et al. v. Chile. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 154, para. 124; I/A Court H.R. Case of Gomes Lund et al. (Araguaia guerrilla movement) v. Brazil. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2010. Series C No. 219, para. 176; I/A Court H.R. Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores v. Mexico. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 26, 2010. Series C No. 220, para. 225.