60 * * * 218. As already mentioned (supra para. **), the Inter-American Court has competence to interpret and apply the provisions of the American Convention, not only those that establish specific rights, but also those that establish obligations of a general nature, such as those arising from Articles 1 and 2 of the treaty, which are regularly interpreted and applied by the Court, as well as other provisions, including the norms of interpretation established in Article 29 of this instrument. 219. Regarding the so-called “Federal Clause” in Article 28 of the American Convention, on previous occasions the Court has referred to the scope of the international human rights obligations of Federal States. Within the framework of its contentious competence, the Court has established clearly that “case law, which has stood unchanged for more than a century, holds that a State cannot plead its federal structure to avoid complying with an international obligation.”191 The Court also examined this matter under its advisory competence, establishing that “international provisions that concern the protection of human rights in the American States […] must be respected by the American States Parties to the respective conventions, regardless of whether they have a federal or a unitary structure.”192 Thus, the Court considers that States Parties must guarantee and ensure respect for all the rights embodied in the American Convention to all persons subject to their jurisdiction, without any limitation or exception based on the said internal structure. The legal system and practices of the entities that form a Federal State Party to the Convention must conform to the American Convention. 220. The Court finds that the claim concerning a possible failure to respect the obligations arising from Article 28 of the Convention should refer to a fact that has sufficient substance to be considered true non-compliance. In this case, the mere mention by the State of communication difficulties with a component entity of the Federal State during an unscheduled working meeting and in a brief does not, of itself, signify or entail noncompliance with the provision. The Court notes that, prior to the proceedings before it, the State had not invoked its federal structure to avoid complying with an international obligation. As indicated by the State, and not disproved by the Commission or the representatives, these statements constituted an explanation about progress in implementing the recommendations in the Commission’s Report on Merits. This is the meaning revealed even by the transcripts that the representatives made of the State’s affirmations.193 Based on the above, the Court does not find that the State has failed to comply with the obligations arising from Article 28 of the American Convention, in relation to Articles 1 and 2 thereof. XI REPARATIONS 191 Cf. Garrido and Baigorria v. Argentina. Reparations and costs. Judgment of August 27, 1998. Series C No. 39, para. 46. 192 Cf. The Right to Information on Consular Assistance within the Framework of the Guarantees of Due Process of Law. Advisory Opinion OC-16/99 of October 1, 1999. Series A No. 16, para. 140. The Court has ruled similarly in its decisions on provisional measures: “Brazil is a federal State and […] the Urso Branco Prison is located in one of is federative units; however, this does not excuse the State from complying with its protection obligations. […] The State must organize its internal structure and adopt the measures that are necessary, according to its political and administrative organization, to comply with these provisional measures. […]. Matter of the Urso Branco Prison. Provisional measures with regard to Brazil. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 2, 2008, fourteenth considering paragraph. 193 Cf. Final written arguments of the representatives (merits file, tome IV, folios 1767 and 1768).