d) exclud[es] or limit[s] the effect produced by the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, and other international acts of the same nature. 16. The jurisprudence of the Court sets forth that although this provision is in "Part I—State Obligations and Rights Protected" of the American Convention, Article 29 requires not only the States that have ratified the Convention but also the Court itself to exercise its jurisdiction and authority to interpret the Convention. In this sense, both in its contentious and advisory role, on several occasions, the Court has referred to this provision for the purposes of interpreting the American Convention, in three areas: 1) to clarify the content of certain provisions of the Convention, 2) to establish criteria for interpretation, such as the principle of "evolutionary interpretation" of human rights treaties, the principle of "implementation of the most favorable norm for the protection of human rights" and the prohibition of depriving rights of their core content, and 3) to determine the scope of its advisory jurisdiction.14 17. Moreover, the Court has stipulated that: it [h]as jurisdiction to issue, with complete authority, interpretations of all provisions of the Convention, including those of a procedural nature, and it is the most appropriate body to do so as "the ultimate interpreter of the American Convention.15 18. In exercising its jurisdiction to interpret procedural provisions of the American Convention, the Court has adopted fundamental decisions for the inter-American system. One decision was that the Tribunal is the competent body to monitor compliance with its own judgments. Indeed, on the sole occasion that a State challenged the Court's authority to carry out such monitoring, the Court stated that: when adopting the provisions of Article 65 of the Convention, [t]he intention of the States was to grant the Court the authority to monitor compliance with its rulings, and that the Court would be responsible for informing the OAS General Assembly, through its annual report, of cases in which the decisions of the Court had not been complied with, since it is not possible to apply Article 65 of the Convention unless the Court monitors compliance with its decisions. To determine the scope of the provisions of Articles 33, 62(1), 62(3) and 65 of the American Convention, and also Article 30 of the Statute of the Court, and to comply adequately with the obligation to monitor compliance with its decisions, the Court has respected the interpretation guidelines set forth in the American Convention and the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, and also took into consideration the nature and superior common values which the Convention is inspired by.16. 19. Another important decision taken by the Court concerns the alleged "withdrawal" by a State of the recognition of the jurisdiction of the Court. In various judgments issued against said State, the Court stated that: According to Article 31(1) of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 14 Cf. Case of Apitz Barbera et al. ("First Disputes Court") v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 5, 2008. Series C No. 182, para. 217 to 219. 15 Article 55 of the American Convention on Human Rights. Advisory Opinion OC-20/09, supra note 8, para. 18. See also Case of Almonacid Arellano et al. v. Chile. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 12, para. 124, and Case of La Cantuta v. Perú. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 29, 2006. Series C No. 162, para. 173. 16 Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 1, para. 90 and 91. 5