25 State or of its norms, with the Convention or other treaties applicable to its jurisdiction, the Court can interpret the rights and obligations contained therein in light of other treaties and relevant norms. In this case, using the sources, principles, and standards of international 127 refugee law and special applicable regulations to situations that determine refugee status of a person and their correlative rights, in a manner that is complimentary to the norms of the Convention, the Court is not assuming the existence of a hierarchy between the normative orders. 80. If the Inter-American Court were to ignore the plethora of existing approaches with respect to a single topic, emanating normatively from different international treaties and functionally from different international mechanisms, it would not only be impossible to speak of a jurisprudential dialogue – which constitutes an integrative element of rights itself, - it would also make it extremely complicated for the States to comply with their international obligations, if such duties were downright contradictory with norms of a distinct order, with whose application they coincide, or completely devoid of connection to them. The foregoing is based on the assumption that many States with whom this Court relates with actively participate both in the Inter-American System, as well as the Universal System of Human Rights, and that, naturally, have their own constitutional procedural systems for the protection of fundamental rights. 81. This interaction has been recognized by the Inter-American Court through the concept of the corpus juris of international human rights law, which is comprised of a set of international instruments of varied content and juridical effects (treaties, conventions, resolutions and declarations). For the Inter-American Tribunal, its dynamic evolution has had a positive impact on international law in affirming and developing up the latter’s faculty for regulating relations between States and the human beings within their respective jurisdictions.128 82. As a result, Article 25 of the American Convention establishes the right to an effective judicial remedy, which may be the remedy of amparo or another remedy of a similar nature and equal scope for those rights that cannot be heard by the courts using the amparo remedy;129 on the other hand, by virtue of Article 29 of the Convention, which requires a more favorable or extensive interpretation, based on the pro persona principle, the rights protected by Article 25 are those included in the corpus juris. Of course, this protection should be executed taking into consideration the different powers of each judicial nature.” Other norms refer to obligations imposed by international law in relation to the suspension of guarantees (Article 27), as well as to “generally recognized principles of International Law” in definition of the exhaustion of domestic remedies (Article 46(1)((a). 127 In this sense, that express mutatis mutandi in the Case of the Mapiripan Massacre V. Colombia is applicable in that, “with regard to establishment of the international responsibility of the State in the instant case, the Court cannot set aside the existence of general and special duties of the State to protect the civilian population, derived from International Humanitarian Law, specifically Article 3 common of the August 12, 1949 Geneva Agreements and the provisions of the additional Protocol to the Geneva Agreements regarding protection of the victims of non-international armed conflicts (Protocol II).” Case of the Mapiripan Massacre V. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 134, para. 114. 128 Cf. Juridical Condition and Rights of the Undocumented Migrant. Advisory Opinion OC-18/03 of September 17, 2003. Series to No. 18, para. 120; and Cf. The Right to Information on Consular Assistance in the Framework of the Guarantees of the Due Process of Law. Advisory Opinion OC-16/99 of October 1, 1999. Series to No. 16, para. 115. 129 Cf. Case of Castañeda Gutman V. México. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 6, 2008. Series C No. 184, para. 92.