work in the most positive sense possible. 30 To the contrary, let me repeat, the Court is responsible – in the exercise of its contentious jurisdiction – for ruling, with binding effects for the defendant States, in the cases that are submitted to it and, in the exercise of its advisory and non-contentious competence, for issuing its non-binding opinion; in other words, in both situations, applying and interpreting the Convention. Evidently, to this end, it must not only respect the provisions of international human rights law, but also those of general international law and, ultimately, law in general, even in the eventuality that one, some or all of them establish norms that are not shared. 15. And this is necessary, not only to deliver a solid and substantiated judgment or advisory opinion, but also so that, in the case of the former, the State concerned restores as soon as possible the effective enjoyment of the violated human right or, in the case of the latter, proceeds after having been warned that, if it does so in a certain way, it runs the risk of committing a human right violation. In sum, abiding by law allows the Court to be as objective as possible in its decisions and, consequently, more just. C. Interpretation of treaties 16. Therefore, the Court is responsible for determining, from among the various possibilities, the meaning and scope of the Convention’s provisions. Evidently, if the text of the corresponding norm does not offer several alternatives for its application, it would not be necessary to examine it further, because it would not represent an obscure or ambiguous matter whose meaning and scope needed to be determined. 17. This means that the interpretation of the Convention consists in fathoming the intention of its States Parties when they signed it and, eventually, how that intention expressed in the Convention should be understood in relation to new situations. And, for this purpose, it is necessary to consider the Convention not only as an expression of the reality, but also of what it aspires to be. In other words, the Convention not only reflects the society that it regulates, but also the society that it hopes for. 18. That said, the principal rule for the interpretation of treaties contained in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties,31 is that: “A treaty shall be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of its object and purpose.” (b) to make recommendations to the governments of the member states, when it considers such action advisable, for the adoption of progressive measures in favor of human rights within the framework of their domestic law and constitutional provisions as well as appropriate measures to further the observance of those rights; (c) to prepare such studies or reports as it considers advisable in the performance of its duties; (d) to request the governments of the member states to supply it with information on the measures adopted by them in matters of human rights; (e) to respond, through the General Secretariat of the Organization of American States, to inquiries made by the member states on matters related to human rights and, within the limits of its possibilities, to provide those states with the advisory services they request; (f) to take action on petitions and other communications pursuant to its authority under the provisions of Articles 44 through 51 of this Convention; and (g) to submit an annual report to the General Assembly of the Organization of American States.” 30 Diccionario de la Lengua Española, Real Academia Española, 2020. “Activismo: 1. Tendencia a comportarse de un modo extremadamente dinámico. 2. Ejercicio del proselitismo y acción social de carácter público. Activista: 1. Perteneciente o relativo al activismo. 2. Seguidor del activismo.” 31 Hereinafter, the Vienna Convention. 6