Article 21 is subject to the following reservation: "The Argentine Government establishes that questions relating to the Government's economic policy shall not be subject to review by an international Court. Neither shall it consider reviewable anything the national courts may determine to be matters of 'public utility' and 'social interest', nor anything they may understand to be 'fair compensation'." 37. The Court has established criteria regarding the interpretation of reservations to the Convention. 29 First, when interpreting the reservations the Court shall, above all, apply a strictly textual analysis. Second, the object and purpose of the corresponding treaty30 shall be duly considered, which in the case of the American Convention concerns “the protection of the basic rights of human beings.”31 In addition, the reservation must be interpreted in accordance with Article 29 of the Convention. 32 38. From a textual analysis of the reservation made by Argentina at the time of ratification of the American Convention, the Court notes that it was exclusively stipulated for Article 21 of the treaty. Consequently, it is clear that the State did not wish to extend the scope of that reservation to other rights or precepts enshrined in the Convention. 39. With regard to the object and purpose of the treaty, the Court has established in its case law that “modern human rights treaties in general, and the American Convention in particular, are not multilateral treaties of a traditional nature concluded to accomplish the reciprocal exchange of rights for the mutual benefit of the contracting States. Their object and purpose is the protection of the fundamental rights of human beings. Thus, by adopting these human rights treaties, States are subject to a legal order within which they, for the common good, assume various obligations, not in relation to other States, but towards all individuals within their jurisdiction.” 33 40. In addition, the Court reiterates that, in light of Article 29 of the American Convention, a reservation should not be interpreted as restricting the enjoyment and exercise of the rights and freedoms recognized in the Convention to a greater extent than that set forth in the reservation itself.34 Therefore, the Court concludes that from the textual interpretation, and taking into account the purpose and object of the treaty, the application of the reservation made to Article 21 of the Convention clearly cannot be extended to the arguments presented by the Inter-American Commission for the alleged violation of Article 25 of that treaty. 29 Cf. Case of Boyce et al. v. Barbados. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2007. Series C No. 169, para. 15 and Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Administrative Court”) v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 5, 2008. Series C No. 182, para. 217. See also, The Effect of Reservations on the Entry into Force of the American Convention on Human Rights (Arts. 74 and 75). Advisory Opinion OC-2/82 of September 24, 1982. Series A No. 2, para. 35, and Restrictions to the Death Penalty (Arts. 4.2 and 4.4 American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC3/83 of September 8, 1983. Series A No. 3, paras. 60/66. 30 Cf. Case of Boyce et al. v. Barbados; para. 15. See also Article 75 of the American Convention and Article 19 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties indicating that reservations to a treaty must be compatible with the object and purpose of the treaty). 31 Cf. Case of Boyce et al. v. Barbados, para. 15; Advisory Opinion OC-2/82; para. 29, and Advisory Opinion OC-3/83, para. 65. 32 Cf. Case of Boyce et al. v. Barbados, para. 15; Advisory Opinion OC-3/83, para. 66. 33 Advisory Opinion OC-2/82; para. 29. 34 Cf. Case of Boyce et al. v. Barbados, para. 15; Advisory Opinion OC-3/83, para. 66. 13