22 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 76. In the jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court, the interpretative norm of Article 29 of the American Convention has been utilized in order to integrate the rights provided for in both the Convention, as well as in the constitutions and domestic laws. 77. The Inter-American Court has recognized that, in conformance with Article 29(b) of the American Convention – which precludes a restrictive interpretation of rights – an evolutionary interpretation of the American Convention, in relation to the international instruments on the protection of human rights, is evident,116 which, in turn, leads to the affirmation that human rights treaties are living instruments, whose interpretation must go hand in hand with evolving times and current living conditions117 The Inter-American Court has found that such an evolutionary interpretation is consistent with the general rules of interpretation set forth in Article 29 of the American Convention, as well those set forth in 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 Convention, [La interpretación conforme. El modelo constitucional ante los tratados internacionales sobre derechos humanos and el control de convencionalidad], México, Porrúa-IMDPC, 2013, p. 184 and ss. 116 Cf. Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community V. Nicaragua. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2001. Series C No. 79, para. 148. 117 Cf. Case of the Mapiripan Massacre V. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 134, para. 106.