14. Ever since the first case was brought before the Court, it has stipulated, "[t] he object and purpose of the American Convention is the effective protection of human rights. Therefore, the Convention must be interpreted so as to give it its full meaning and to allow the system of protection of human rights of the Commission and the Court to become fully 'effective.’" 13 15. The Court also took into account that Article 29 of the American Convention on the "Norms of Interpretation" provides clear hermeneutical guidelines such that the interpretation of the Convention cannot be done in a way that: a) allow[s] a State Party, group or person to suppress the enjoyment or exercise of rights and freedoms recognized in this Convention or restrict them more than the manner provided for in the Convention; b) limit[s] the enjoyment or exercise of any right or freedom recognized pursuant to the laws of any State Party or pursuant to any another convention that the States form part of; c) exclud[es] other rights or guarantees that are inherent to the human being or that are derived from a representative democratic form of government; d) exclud[es] or limit[s] the effect produced by the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, and other international acts of the same nature. 16. The jurisprudence of the Court sets forth that although this provision is in "Part I— State Obligations and Rights Protected" of the American Convention, Article 29 requires not only the States that have ratified the Convention but also the Court itself to exercise its jurisdiction and authority to interpret the Convention. In this sense, both in its contentious and advisory role, on several occasions, the Court has referred to this provision for the purposes of interpreting the American Convention, in three areas: 1) to clarify the content of certain provisions of the Convention, 2) to establish criteria for interpretation, such as the principle of "evolutionary interpretation" of human rights treaties, the principle of "implementation of the most favorable norm for the protection of human rights" and the prohibition of depriving rights of their core content, and 3) to determine the scope of its advisory jurisdiction.14 17. Moreover, the Court has stipulated that: it [h]as jurisdiction to issue, with complete authority, interpretations of all provisions of the Convention, including those of a procedural nature, and it is the most appropriate body to do so as "the ultimate interpreter of the American Convention.15 13 Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 1, para. 30. 14 Cf. Case of Apitz Barbera et al. ("First Disputes Court") v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 5, 2008. Series C No. 182, para. 217 to 219. 15 Article 55 of the American Convention on Human Rights. Advisory Opinion OC-20/09, supra note 8, para. 18. See also Case of Almonacid Arellano et al. v. Chile. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 12, para. 124, and Case of La Cantuta v. Perú. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 29, 2006. Series C No. 162, para. 173. 5