3 d) lack of access to information regarding the fate of the disappeared victims and of the executed person – violation of the rights to freedom of thought and expression (article 13), in regard to the obligation to respect rights recognized by the Convention (Article 1(1)), to the detriment of the next of kin of the disappeared victims and of the executed person, and e) lack of access to justice, to the truth, and to information – violation of the right to personal integrity (Article 5), in regard to the obligation to respect rights recognized by the Convention (Article 1(1)), to the detriment of the next of kin of the disappeared and of the executed person, for the violation and suffering caused by the impunity of those responsible. II. SUPREME COURTS AND THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS – CONSTITUTIONAL CONTROL AND CONVENTIONALITY CONTROL 4. Continuing with the brief incursion regarding current relevant topics, if supreme courts or national constitutional tribunals are incumbent upon constitutional control and of having the last word within the internal legal frame of the States, the conventionality control is incumbent upon the Inter-American Court of Human Rights as well of having the last word on issues regarding human rights. This is what results from formally recognizing the jurisdictional competence of the Court, by a State, which is what has been done by Brazil.419 5. For all States of the American Continent, which have willingly adopted it, the Convention420 is the equivalent to a supranational Constitution pertaining to Human Rights. All public powers and national spheres, as well as the respective Federal, state and municipal legislatures of all adherent States are under obligation to respect it and conform it. III. ADAPTATION OF DOMESTIC AMERICAN CONVENTION 6. LAW TO THE NORMS OF THE National Constitutions must be interpreted, or if necessary, even amended to maintain a harmony with the Convention and with the jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. In accordance with Article 2 of the Convention, States Parties undertake to adopt measures to eliminate those legal norms and practices of any sort that would violate it; conversely, they also 419 The acknowledgment of the jurisdiction was made by Brazil on December 10, 1998 and notes that “[t]he Brazil declares that it recognizes, for an undefined period, as binding, ipso facto, the jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, in all of the cases related to the interpretation and application of the American Convention on Human Rights, pursuant to Article 62 of the same, under the reservation of reciprocity, and for facts subsequent to this Declaration.” Cf. B32: American Convention on Human Rights. 4. Brazil. Recognition of jurisdiction of the Court. Available at http://www.cidh.oas.org/Basicos/Portugues/d.Convencao_Americana_Ratif..htm Last access on October 4, 2010. 420 Adopted in San Jose, Costa Rica, in the framework of the Organization of American States due to the Inter-American Specialized Conference on Human Rights, on November 22, 1969, entered into international force on July 18, 1978. Brazil acceded on July 9, 1922, and ratified it on September 25, 1992.