Convention within their respective terms of reference and the corresponding procedural regulations. In this task, the judges and organs involved in the administration of justice should take into account not only the treaty, but also its interpretation by the InterAmerican Court, the ultimate interpreter of the American Convention.51 This is the consistent standard that this Court has indicated as a mechanism by which the judicial organs can prevent potential human rights violations. However, this “control of conformity with the Convention” also plays an important role in compliance with or implementation of a specific judgment of the Inter-American Court, especially when a judicial organ is responsible for this compliance. In this situation, the judicial organ has the function of ensuring that the American Convention and the rulings of this Court prevail over domestic laws that obstruct compliance with the provisions in any specific case. 27. Thus, for example, the highest courts in the region have referred to and applied the control of conformity with the Convention taking into account interpretations made by the Inter-American Court. In this regard, the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of Costa Rica has indicated that: It should be noted that if the Inter-American Court of Human Rights is the natural organ to interpret the American Convention on Human Rights […], the authority of its decision when interpreting the Convention and evaluating domestic laws in light of this treaty, either in contentious cases or as the result of a mere consultation, shall have – in principle – the same significance as the provision interpreted.52 28. For its part, the Constitutional Court of Bolivia has indicated that: Indeed, the Pact of San José, Costa Rica, as a norm that forms part of the constitutional corpus, is composed of three essential strictly interrelated parts: the first, consists of the preamble, the second is entitled obligations, and the third relates to the organs. Chapter VIII of this instrument regulates the Inter-American Court of Human Rights; consequently, based on a criterion of “systemic” constitutional interpretation, it should be established that this organ and, therefore, the decisions that it issues, also form part of this constitutional corpus. This is so, based on two legal grounds, namely: (1) The purpose of the jurisdiction of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights, and (2) The application of the legal doctrine of the practical effects [effect util] of judgments concerning human rights.53 29. Furthermore, the Supreme Court of Justice of the Dominican Republic has established that: Consequently, not only the provisions of the American Convention on Human Rights are binding for the Dominican State and, consequently, for the Judiciary, but also its interpretation by the jurisdictional organs created as a means of protection under Article 33 of the Convention, which attributes the competence to hear matters related to compliance with the commitments assumed by the States Parties.54 30. And the Peruvian Constitutional Court has stated that: 51 Cf. Case of Almonacid Arellano et al. vs. Chile, para. 124, and Case of Furlan and family members v. Argentina, para. 302. 52 Judgment of May 9, 1995, delivered by the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of Costa Rica. Action on unconstitutionality. Decision 2313-95 (Case file 0421-S-90), considering paragraph VII. 53 Judgment issued on May 10, 2010, by the Constitutional Court of Bolivia (Case file No. 2006-13381-27RAC), section III.3. on “The Inter-American Human Rights System. Conclusions of law and effects of the judgments delivered by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights”. 54 Decision No. 1920-2003 issued on November 13, 2003, by the Supreme Court of Justice of the Dominican Republic. 13