due process in the administrative proceedings of the Comptroller […] pursuant to the standards of Article 8 of the American Convention.” 224. In the same sense, the representatives requested that “the State of Venezuela be required to suppress or modify Article 105 of the [LOCGRSNCF and to]immediately cease the imposition of political disqualifications by the Comptroller General of the Republic.” 225. Given that the Court found violations of political rights and judicial guarantees (supra paras. 109 and 149), the Court considers that, as a guarantee of nonrepetition, the State shall, within a reasonable time, adapt Article 105 of the LOCGRSNCF to that noted in paragraphs 199, 205, and 206 of this Judgment. 226. Notwithstanding the foregoing, as set forth in its prior jurisprudence, the Court recalls that it is aware that the domestic authorities are subject to the rule of law and, therefore, are obligated to apply the existing provisions in the legal system.292 But, when a State is a Party to an international treaty such as the American Convention, all its bodies, including the judges and other bodies related to the administration of justice, are also subject to it, which obligates them to ensure that the effects of the provisions of the Convention are not affected by the application of regulations that are contrary to its object and purpose. Judges and bodies related to the administration of justice at all levels are obligated ex officio to exercise "control of conformity with the Convention" between the domestic rules and the American Convention, within the framework of their powers and the corresponding procedural regulations. In this task, judges and bodies related to the administration of justice must take into account not only the treaty, but also the interpretation thereof made by the Inter-American Court, the ultimate interpreter of the American Convention. 293 227. For example, the courts of the highest hierarchical level in the region, such as the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Costa Rica,294 The Constitutional Tribunal of Bolivia,295 the Supreme Court of the Dominican Republic,296 the Constitutional Tribunal of Peru, 297 the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation of Argentina,298 and the 292 Cf. Case of Almonacid Arellano et al. V. Chile. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 154, para. 124; Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores, supra note 21, para. 225, and Case of Chocrón Chocrón, supra note 13, para. 194. 293 Cf. Case of Almonacid Arellano, supra note 292, para. 124; Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores, supra note 21, para. 225, and Case of Chocrón Chocrón, supra note 13, para. 164. 294 Cf. Judgment of May 9, 1995, issued by the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of Costa Rica. Unconstitutionality Action. Opinion 2313-95 (Case file 0421-S-90), consideranding clause VII. 295 Resolution issued on May 10, 2010, by the Constitutional Tribunal of Bolivia (Case file No. 2006-1338127-RAC), section III.3.on “El Sistema Interamericano de Derechos Humanos. Fundamentos y efectos de las Sentencias emanadas de la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos” [The Inter-American System on Human Rights. Grounds and effects of the Judgment issued by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.” 296 Resolution No. 1920-2003 issed on November 13, 2003, by the Supreme Court of Justice of the Dominican Republic. 297 Judgment issued on July 21, 2006, for the Constitutional Tribunal of Peru (Case file No. 2730-2006PA/TC), ground 12 and judgment 00007-2007-PI/TC issued on June 19, 2007, for the full Constitutional Tribunal of Peru (Attorney Bar of Callao c. Congress of the Republic), ground 26. 298 Judgment issued on December 23, 2004, by the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation, Argentine Republic (Case file 224. XXXIX), “Espósito, Miguel Angel s/ incident of perspcription of the criminal action pushed in his defense,” considering clause 6 and Judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation of Argentina, Mazzeo, Julio Lilo et al., cassation and unconstitutionality appeal. M. 2333. XLII. Et al. of July 13, 2007, para. 20. 81