31 In that order, it should be established that the local courts of the Mexican State should not limit themselves to applying only the local laws but are also obligated to apply the Constitution, treaties, or international conventions and the jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, among others, which obligates them to exercise the control of conformity with the Convention among the domestic legal and supranational norms, as was considered by the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of the Nation, upon solving the direct review under 908/2006, promoted by Nahum Ramos Yescas, at the session held on April 18 two thousand seven, when it was determined that: "The concept of best interest of the child has been interpreted by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (whose jurisdiction the Mexican state accepted on March 24,1981, upon ratifying the American Convention on Human Rights and whose standards, therefore are mandatory.” (…) Then, upon the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Argentina having considered that given that Mexico accepted the American Convention on Human Rights, it also acknowledged the interpretation of said Convention made by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, which leads the appellate court to consider that all State courts are obligated to exercise control of conformity with the Convention to resolve any matter under its jurisdiction, as stated by the Inter-American Court decision cited in the case of Almonacid Arellano et al. v. Chile, in a ruling issued on September twenty-six, two thousand six. Hence, the national judicial bodies are obliged to exercise 'control of conformity with the Convention,' with respect to acts of authority, including general standards, pursuant to the authority conferred upon them by the codes to which they are subject and the provisions of international law of human rights, to which they are bound by the conclusion or ratification of treaties or conventions of the President of the Republic, which aims to create conformity among the domestic acts and international commitments of the State, which generate it certain duties and recognize certain rights for individuals; a control which remains in international-or supranationaltribunals, as well as in the national ones, who therefrom entrust them with the new regional courts of human rights and acquire further obligation to adopt in their legal apparatus, both the norms and the interpretation thereof, through policies and laws that guarantee respect for human rights and guarantees, expressed in their national constitutions, and of course in their international treaty commitments. Because of this, it is necessary to establish that the authorities of the Mexican state have the unavoidable obligation to observe and apply in their domestic jurisdiction-- as well as in the legislative-- actions of any other order to ensure respect for the rights and guarantees, not only of the constitution and internal rules but also of the international conventions to which Mexico is party and the interpretations of its provisions carried out by international bodies; which leads to substantiate that all courts must carry out the diffused control of conformity with the Convention, to resolve the issues under its jurisdiction. (…) This means that although the Mexican courts and judges, in principle, are subject to the observance and application of the rule of national law; when the Mexican State ratified an international treaty, the American Convention, as part of the State apparatus, they also are subject to it, therefore, are obligated to ensure that the effects of the provisions that make it up are not diminished by the application of laws contrary to its object and purpose; through the exercise of control of conformity with the