[t]he binding nature of the judgments of the [Inter-American] Court is not exhausted by their operative paragraphs which, evidently, concern only the State that is a party to the proceedings), but extends to their legal grounds or ratio decidendi, with the added element that, owing to the prevalence of the [Fourth Final and Transitory Provision (FFTP] of the Constitution and Article V of the Preliminary Title of the [Code of Constitutional Procedure], in this sphere the judgment is binding for every national public authority, even in those cases in which the Peruvian State has not been a party to the proceedings. Indeed, the [Inter-American] Court’s competence to interpret and apply the Convention, recognized in Article 62(3) of this treaty, added to the mandate of the FFTP of the Constitution, means that the interpretation of the Convention’s provisions made during any proceedings is binding for all the domestic public authorities including, evidently, this court.55 31. The said Court has also established that: The direct connection between the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and this Constitutional Court is evident; a dual connection: on the one hand, restorative, because when the fundamental right that has been violated is interpreted in light of the decisions of the Court, the possibility of providing it with an adequate and effective protection is optimized and, on the other hand, preventive, because it is by respecting this that the unfortunate institutional consequences entailed by the adverse judgments of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights for the legal certainty of the Peruvian State are avoided.56 32. The Supreme Court of Justice of Argentina has stated that “the Argentine State is obliged to comply with [the decisions of the Inter-American Court] (Art. 68(1), ACHR); therefore, the said court has established that “in principle, it must subordinate the content of its decisions to those of the said international court.”57 This Supreme Court has also stated “that the interpretation of the American Convention on Human Rights must be guided by the case law of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights,” because “it is an obligatory interpretation criterion for the Argentine constitutional powers in the sphere of their competence and, consequently, also for the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation, in order to safeguard the obligations assumed by the Argentine State under the inter-American system for the protection of human rights.”58 33. For its part, the Supreme Court of Justice of Mexico has indicated that “all the terms of the judgments of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights are binding for the Judiciary of the Federation. Therefore, [when Mexico has been a party to the case,] not only the specific operative paragraphs of the Judgment are binding for the Judiciary, but also all the criteria contained in the Judgment deciding the respective litigation."59 34. In addition, the Court Constitutional of Colombia has stated that, since the Colombian Constitution indicates that the constitutional rights and obligations should be interpreted “in according with the human rights treaties ratified by Colombia,” the result is “that the case law of the international organs responsible for interpreting those treaties constitutes relevant interpretative criteria to determine the meaning of the constitutional norms on fundamental rights.”60 55 Judgment delivered by the Constitutional Court of Peru on July 21, 2006 (Case file No. 2730-2006-PA/TC), twelfth considering paragraph. 56 Cf. Judgment 00007-2007-PI/TC delivered by the Plenary of the Constitutional Court of Peru on June 18, 2007 (Lawyers’ Professional Association of Callao v. Congress of the Republic), twenty-sixth considering paragraph. 57 Judgment delivered by the Supreme Court of Justice of the Argentina Republic on December 23, 2004 (Case file 224. XXXIX), “Espósito, Miguel Angel, ref/prescription of the criminal action filed in his defense,” sixth considering paragraph. 58 Judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice of Argentina, Mazzeo, Julio Lilo et al., remedy of cassation and on unconstitutionality. M. 2333. XLII. et al. of July 13, 2007, para. 20 59 Plenary of the Supreme Court of Justice of Mexico, Miscellaneous file 912/2010, decision of July 14, 2011, para. 19. 60 Judgment C-010/00 issued on January 19, 2000, by the Constitutional Court of Colombia, para. 6. 14