22 the State concerned and the American Convention itself. This is what the right to the guarantee of fundamental rights is about.112 72. In this scheme, through the substantive right to judicial protection,113 the law should provide for, and the courts effectuate, a recourse that takes into account the monitoring and controlling of compliance with the laws, the Constitution, and the treaties. In other words, the Inter-American Court has identified this with the duty to adopt the legislative and other type of measures to give effect to the right to judicial protection, and the duty of all authorities to exercise control for conformity with the Constitution and the Convention. 73. In this sense, Article 25 of the American Convention possesses an integrative dimension of the sources of law (domestic and of the Convention) that serve as the basis for guaranteeing judicial protection. This normative integration can result, in turn, through the judicial institution responsible for implementing the recourse that has been put into action by the person who claims to have been the subject of a violation of human rights from various sources both domestic and international. 74. Nevertheless, this effort of normative integration between the provisions of domestic and Inter-American legislation can, and on occasion, must, be more widely recognized when there is a norm that might result more favorable to the individual. 75. Thus, Article 29(b) of the American Convention provides that “No provision of this Convention shall be interpreted as […] restricting the enjoyment or exercise of any right or freedom recognized by virtue of the laws of any State Party or by virtue of another convention to which one of the said states is a party.” This necessarily leads to the approach regarding that in the domestic forum the integrative exercise of the rights must be broad and marked by the diverse international treatises of which each State is a Party. In some latitudes, this integration of norms –and of jurisprudence— has led to the understanding or recognition of the existence of “blocks of rights” or “blocks of constitutionality”114 or “parameter of constitutional regularity.”115 112 From this perspective, the right to judicial protection is substantive, since its presence or absence, leads respectively to the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of the fundamental rights of all individual cases; he or she who does not have a remedy according to Article 25(1) of the American Convention, or lacks for some reason the right to use it, could lead to the establishment of a violation of their right recognized by the Pact of San José, the Constitution or legislation of their country; if the right to judicial protection is not identified with the fundamental right that it guarantees, undoubtedly this is apparent in nothing less than the effectiveness and "effet utile" of the provisions that constitute it. 113 See supra, previous footnote. 114 The design, content and scope of the "constitutional block” takes on different nuances and particularities of each country. On the matter, the classical studies of Favoreu, Louis, and Rubio Llorente, Francisco are illustrative, The constitutionality block. [El bloque de la constitucionalidad], Madrid, Civitas, 1991. See also Manili, Pablo Luis, The reception of international law on human rights in constitutional argentine law. [El bloque de constitucionalidad. La recepción del derecho internacional de los derechos humanos en el derecho constitucional argentino], Madrid, Civitas , 1991. Also see, Manili , Pablo Luis Buenos Aires, The Law, 2003; Londoño Ayala, César Augusto, Constitutionality Block [Bloque de constitucionalidad], Bogotá, New Legal Editions, 2010; Uprimny, Rodrigo, Constitutionality Block, human rights and criminal proceedings [Bloque de constitucionalidad, derechos humanos and proceso penal], Bogotá, Superior Council of the Judiciary, 2006. An interesting comparative study and of reception of this doctrine in latin American countries, can be seen in Góngora Mera, Manuel Eduardo, InterAmerican judicial Constitutionalism: On the Constitutional Rank of Human Rights Treaties in Latin American through National and Inter-American Adjudication, San José, Inter-American Institute of Human Rights, 2011. 115 Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (México). Contradiction Thesis 293/2011, resolved on September 3, 2013 (pending more). It is useful to understand the dimension of the “constitutional block/conformity with the Convention” in Mexico, the works of Caballero Ochoa, José Luis, The interpretation in conformity. The Constitutional model under international treaties on human rights and the control of conformity with the