made of it cannot result in any weakening of the system of protection embodied therein.4 This is even more rigorous in the case of a human rights treaty such as the American Convention, in which there is an express intention of the parties to protect human rights in the sense defined by the Convention itself. Indeed, as we know, Article 29 of the Convention, entitled “Restrictions regarding Interpretation,” stipulates precise guiding hermeneutic criteria that reveal the guaranteeing intention of the parties, from the perspective that, under no circumstance, the interpretation of the American Convention shall permit “any State Party, group, or person to suppress the enjoyment or exercise of the rights and freedoms recognized in this Convention or to restrict them to a greater extent than is provided for herein.” 10. With regard to the matter in question, this “guarantee-based approach” points precisely to the fundamental elements of due process and the procedural guarantees. Hence, over and above whether the proceedings are before judicial authorities or before other mechanisms of the public authorities, in its consistent case law, the Court has reaffirmed – and reaffirms in this judgment – that the individual must have adequate guarantees to act and to defend his legitimate interests before the public authorities, with appropriate conditions of legality and rationality in proceedings in which his rights are defined. 11. This guarantee-based approach is fundamental. A restrictive and limited interpretation of the guarantees would not only go against the meaning and purpose of the treaty, but against the beneficial evolution of the institutional reality of our societies in the more than four decades that have elapsed since the approval of the Convention in 1969. To the interpretative basis reiterated in the case law of the Court and in separate opinions such as that of Sergio García Ramírez in the case of Claude Reyes et al. v. Chile5 of September 19, 2006, I add this fundamental consideration related to an evolution in the functions and procedures of the States in most of the countries of the hemisphere. 12. Indeed, the sphere of competences for the determination of rights and obligations by non-judicial bodies is increasing in our societies. Consequently, the consistent case law of the Court, which indicates that it is not only in judicial proceedings that an individual has guarantees to assert his fundamental rights, and that the essence of these guarantees is established in Article 8, is fully coherent and meaningful. Evidently, a growing number of “rights and obligations” are decided in extrajudicial bodies, whether they be administrative, regulatory or extrajudicial. Ranging from matters that could be classified as “traditional” (such as those that are tax-related), to many others with profound patrimonial repercussions that fall within the broad and very diverse activities of regulation assigned to non-judicial bodies, such as, arbitration bodies, in the modern State. 13. According to the logical and teleological meaning of the purpose and contents of human rights instruments in general, and of the American Convention, in particular, because it is clear and essential that individuals should have firm guarantees in the situations in 4 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 1, para. 30; Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 16, 2009. Series C No. 205, para. 42; “Other treaties” subject to the Advisory Jurisdiction of the Court (Art. 64 American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-1/82 of September 24, 1982. Series A No. 1, paras. 43 to 48; Restrictions to the Death Penalty (Arts. 4.2 and 4.4 American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-3/83 of September 8, 1983. Series A No. 3, paras. 47 to 50, and Proposed Amendments to the Naturalization Provision of the Constitution of Costa Rica. Advisory Opinion OC4/84 of January 19, 1984. Series A No. 4, paras. 20 to 24, among others. 5 Cf. Case of Claude Reyes et al. v. Chile. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 19, 2006. Series C No. 151. 3