244. As this is the first contentious case before the Inter-American Court that is substantially related to Article 6(1),354 the Court will provide a brief summary of the evolution of the matter in international law to give content to the concepts of slavery, servitude, the slave trade and traffic in women, and forced labor prohibited by the American Convention, in light of the general rules of interpretation established in Article 29 of the Convention.355 245. On other occasions, both this Court356 and the European Court of Human Rights357 (hereinafter “the ECHR”) have indicated that human rights treaties are living instruments, the interpretation of which must evolve with the times and current living conditions. This evolutive interpretation is consequent with the general rules of interpretation recognized in Article 29 of the American Convention, as well as those established by the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. 246. In this regard, the Court has affirmed that, when interpreting a treaty, not only should the agreements and instruments formally related to it be taken into account (second paragraph of Article 31 of the Vienna Convention), but also the system within which it is inserted (third paragraph of Article 31 of this Convention).358 Thus, in order to issue an opinion on the interpretation of the legal provisions in question, the Court will have recourse to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which establishes the general and customary rules for the interpretation of international treaties,359 which entails the simultaneous and joint application of good faith, the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context, and the object and purpose of the treaty. Accordingly, In the Case of the Río Negro Massacres v. Guatemala, the Court ruled on the violation of the prohibition of servitude. However, in that case, the State acknowledged its international responsibility with regard to that violation, among others. 354 In this regard, the Court points out that the preparatory work of the American Convention on Human Rights does not provide a specific interpretation of the scope of the prohibition established in Article 6 of this instrument. 355 356 Cf. The Right to Information on Consular Assistance within the Framework of the Guarantees of Due Process of Law. Advisory Opinion OC-16/99 of October 14, 1999. Series A No. 16, para. 114; and Case of Artavia Murillo et al. (“In vitro fertilization”) v. Costa Rica. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs Judgment of November 28, 2012. Series C No. 257, para. 245. Cf. Case of the Ituango Massacres, para. 144. See also, ECHR, Case of Tyrer v. The United Kingdom, No. 5856/72, Judgment of April 25, 1978, para. 31. 357 Cf. Case of the Ituango Massacres, para. 156. Similarly, The Right to Information on Consular Assistance within the Framework of the Guarantees of Due Process of Law, para. 113, and Case of Artavia Murillo et al. (“In vitro fertilization”), para. 191. 358 Cf. International Court of Justice, Case concerning sovereignty over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan (Indonesia/Malaysia), Judgment of December 17, 2002, para. 37, and International Court of Justice, Case of Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v. the United States of America), Judgment of March 31, 2004, para. 83. 359 62