norms involved and, to this end, it is pertinent to analyze the object and purpose of the treaty itself and, if appropriate, the purposes of the regional system of protection. 88 91. The Preamble to the American Convention contains several references that establish the object and purpose of the treaty: Reaffirming their intention to consolidate in this hemisphere, within the framework of democratic institutions, a system of personal liberty and social justice based on respect for the essential rights of man; Recognizing that the essential rights of man are not derived from one's being a national of a certain state, but are based upon attributes of the human personality, and that they therefore justify international protection in the form of a convention reinforcing or complementing the protection provided by the domestic law of the American states; […] Reiterating that, in accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the ideal of free men enjoying freedom from fear and want can be achieved only if conditions are created whereby everyone may enjoy his economic, social, and cultural rights, as well as his civil and political rights; and Considering that the Third Special Inter-American Conference (Buenos Aires, 1967) approved the incorporation into the Charter of the Organization itself of broader standards with respect to economic, social, and educational rights and resolved that an inter-American convention on human rights should determine the structure, competence, and procedure of the organs responsible for these matters(underlining added). 92. Based on the above, the Court has asserted that the object and purpose of the Convention is “the protection of the fundamental rights of the human being.”89 In this regard, Article 29 of the American Convention expressly establishes certain interpretation standards, including the pro persona principle, which signifies that no provision of this treaty may be interpreted as suppressing the enjoyment or exercise of any right or freedom that may be recognized by virtue of the laws of any State Party, or by virtue of any other convention to which the said State is a party, or excluding or limiting the effect that the American Declaration and other international instruments of the same nature may have. 90 93. As previously indicated, the object and purpose of the treaty is “the protection of the fundamental rights of the human being.” A teleological interpretation of the treaty would be similar to the conclusion reached by means of the literal and the systematic interpretation, Cf. 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. 59, and Entitlement of legal entities to hold rights under the Inter-American Human Rights System (Interpretation and scope of Article 1(2), in relation to Articles 1(2), 8, 11(2), 13, 16, 21, 24, 25, 29, 30, 44, 46 and 62(3) of the American Convention on Human Rights, as well as of Article 8(1)(A) and (B) of the Protocol of San Salvador). Advisory Opinion OC-22/16 of February 26, 2016. Series A No. 22, para. 40. 88 Cf. The Effect of Reservations on the Entry into Force of the American Convention on Human Rights. Advisory Opinion OC-2/82 of September 24, 1982. Series A No. 2, para. 29, and The institution of asylum, and its recognition as a human right under the Inter-American System of Protection (interpretation and scope of Articles 5, 22(7) and 22(8) in relation to Article 1(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC25/18 of May 30, 2018. Series A No. 25, para. 58. 89 Cf. Entitlement of legal entities to hold rights under the Inter-American Human Rights System (Interpretation and scope of Article 1(2), in relation to Articles 1(2), 8, 11(2), 13, 16, 21, 24, 25, 29, 30, 44, 46 and 62(3) of the American Convention on Human Rights, as well as of Article 8(1)(A) and (B) of the Protocol of San Salvador). Advisory Opinion OC-22/16 of February 26, 2016. Series A No. 22, para. 42. 90 32