22 contentious cases. This Inter-American Tribunal has established, in Advisory Opinion 14/94, of December 9, 1994, on international responsibility for the promulgation and enforcement of laws in violation of the Convention,75 the interpretive scope of Articles 176 and 277 of the American Convention on Human Rights. It was deemed that the obligation to dictate the necessary measures to make effective the rights and liberties recognized in said Pact, includes not dictating them when they lead to violations, and also to adapt existing nonconventional norms, a foundation based in a general principle of international law, related to those obligations being carried out in “good faith” and related to them not being invoked for non-compliance of domestic law; this has been picked up by international tribunals such as the Permanent Court of International Justice and the International Court of Justice, also codified in Articles78 and 2779 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treatises. 60. The obligation of compliance of laws of the Convention obligate all authorities and national bodies, regardless of their pertinence before the legislative, executive, or judicial powers, when the State responds and takes on international responsibility for the breaches of international instruments it has undertaken. As stated by García Ramírez: 27. For the effects of the American Convention and of the exercise of the contentious jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court, the State is considered integrally, as a whole. Accordingly, responsibility is global, it concerns the State as a whole and cannot be subject to the division of authority established in domestic law. At the international level, it is not possible to divide the State, to bind before the Court only one or some of its organs, to grant them representation of the State in the proceeding – without this representation affecting the whole State – and excluding other organs from this treaty regime of responsibility, leaving their actions outside the “treaty control [control of conformity with the Convention]” that involves the jurisdiction of the international court. 80 (underlining added). 75 Cf. International Responsibility for the Promulgation and Enforcement of Laws in Violation of the Convention (Arts. 1 and 2 of the American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC14/94 of December 9, 1994. Series A No. 14 76 “Article 1. Obligation to Respect Rights. 1. The States Parties to this Convention undertake to respect the rights and freedoms recognized herein and to ensure to all persons subject to their jurisdiction the free and full exercise of those rights and freedoms, without any discrimination for reasons of race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, economic status, birth, or any other social condition.” 77 “Article 2. Domestic Legal Effects. Where the exercise of any of the rights or freedoms referred to in Article 1 is not already ensured by legislative or other provisions, the States Parties undertake to adopt, in accordance with their constitutional processes and the provisions of this Convention, such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to give effect to those rights or freedoms.” 78 “Art. 26: Pacta sunt servanda. Every treaty in force is binding upon the parties to it and must be performed by them in good faith.” 79 “Art. 27. Internal law and observance of treatises. A party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty. This rule is without prejudice to article 46.” 80 note 11. Cf. para. 27 of his concurring opinion in the Case of Myrna Mack Chang v. Guatemala, supra