38 Agreements, has not been established in a normative vacuum[, … so that] when defining the juridical provisions applicable to this task, it should be noted that, during the Salvadoran conflict, both parties had the obligation to respect a series of provisions of international law, including those stipulated in international human rights law or in international humanitarian law, or in both.”24 118. Based on the above, the Court observes that the State cannot question the full applicability of the human rights embodied in the American Convention, based on the existence of a non international armed conflict. The Court considers that it is necessary to reiterate that the existence of a non international armed conflict does not exempt the State from fulfilling its obligations to respect and guarantee the rights embodied in the American Convention to all persons subject to its jurisdiction,25 or to suspend their application. 119. In its case law, the Court has established clearly that it has the authority to interpret the provisions of the American Convention in light of other international treaties, so that it has frequently used provisions from other human rights treaties ratified by the defendant State to provide content and scope to the provisions of the Convention. In this regard, in its constant case law,26 this Court has decided that “for the purpose of interpreting a treaty, it does not only take into account the agreements and instruments formally relating to it (second paragraph of Article 31 of the Vienna Convention), but also the context (third paragraph of Article 31).” In its case law, the Court has indicated that this concept is particularly important for international human rights law, which has made substantial progress by the evolutive interpretation of the international protection instruments. These parameters allow the Court to use the provisions of international humanitarian law, ratified by the defendant State, to give content and scope to the provisions of the American Convention. 120. In the context of this case, the Court rejects the preliminary objection entitled “Lack of jurisdiction rationae materiae,” because the respective allegations refer to 24 Cf. Report of the United Nations Truth Commission on El Salvador, “De la locura a la esperanza: la guerra de 12 años en El Salvador”, San Salvador, New York, 1992-1993, p. 10. 25 Cf. Case of Bámaca Velásquez, supra note 15, paras. 143, 174 and 207. 26 Cf. Case of Tibi. Judgment of September 7, 2004. Series C No. 114, para. 144; Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute”, supra note 10, para. 148; Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers, supra note 10, paras. 165 and 166; Case of Bámaca Velásquez, supra note 15, paras. 126, 157 and 209; Case of Cantoral Benavides. Judgment of August 18, 2000. Series C No. 69, paras. 98, 100 and 101; Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.). Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C No. 63, paras. 192, 193 and 194; Case of the “Panel Blanca” (Paniagua Morales et al.). Judgment of March 8, 1998. Series C No. 37, para. 133; Juridical Condition and Rights of the Undocumented Migrants. Advisory Opinion OC-18/03 of September 17, 2003. Series A No. 18, paras. 54 and 120; Juridical Condition and Human Rights of the Child. Advisory Opinion OC-17/02 of August 28, 2002. Series A No. 17, paras. 20-22; The Right to Information on Consular Assistance. In the Framework of the Guarantees of the due Process of Law. Opinion OC-16/99 of October 1, 1999. Series A No. 16, paras. 32, 34, 36 and 42; International Responsibility for the Promulgation and Enforcement of Laws in Violation of the Convention (Arts. 1 and 2 of the American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-14/94 of December 9, 1994. Series A No. 14, para. 21; Interpretation of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man within the Framework of Article 64 of the American Convention on Human Rights. Advisory Opinion OC-10/89 of July 14, 1989. Series A No. 10, para. 44; and “Other Treaties” Subject to the Advisory Jurisdiction of the Court (Art. 64 American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-1/82 of September 24, 1982. Series A No. 1, paras. 19 and 21.