46 American Convention constitute, ultimately, the basis for determining a State’s international responsibility for violations of the rights recognized in the Convention, 180 including those recognized under Article 26. However, the American Convention itself explicitly refers to the general rules of international law for its interpretation and application, specifically through Article 29, which establishes the pro personae principle.181 Thus, as has been the consistent practice of this Court,182 when determining the compatibility of a State’s acts and omissions, or of its norms, with the American Convention or other treaties over which it has jurisdiction, it is able to interpret the corresponding obligations and rights in light of other pertinent treaties and norms. 175. Accordingly, the Court will use the sources, principles and criteria of the international corpus iuris as special rules that are applicable in determining the content of the right to social security. The Court advises that these norms will be used to supplement the provisions of the American Convention, and affirms that is not assuming a jurisdiction over some treaties that it does not have, nor is it granting Convention status to norms contained in other national or international instruments related to ESCER.183 On the contrary, the Court will make an interpretation pursuant to the standards established in Article 29, and its own case law, in order to update the meaning of the rights derived from the OAS Charter that are recognized by Article 26 of the Convention. The determination of the right to social security will place special emphasis on the American Declaration, given that this Court has established that: […] the Member States of the Organization have signaled their agreement that the Declaration contains and defines the fundamental human rights referred to in the Charter. Thus, the Charter of the Organization cannot be interpreted and applied as far as human rights are concerned without relating its norms, consistent with the practice of the organs of the OAS, to the corresponding provisions of the Declaration.184 176. Similarly, this Court has indicated on other occasions that human rights treaties are living instruments, the interpretation of which must accompany the evolution of the times and current living conditions. An evolving interpretation is consistent with the general rules of interpretation established in Article 29 of the American Convention, as well as in the Vienna Convention.185 In 180 Cf. Case of the "Mapiripán Massacre" v. Colombia. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 134, para. 107, and Case of Cuscul Pivaral et al. v. Guatemala, supra, para. 100. 181 Cf. Case of the Pacheco Tineo Family v. Bolivia. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 25, 2013. Series C No. 272, para. 143, and Case of Cuscul Pivaral et al. v. Guatemala, supra, para. 100. 182 Cf. Case of Poblete Vilches et al. v. Chile, supra, para. 103; Case of Lagos del Campo v. Peru, supra, para. 145; Case of I.V. v. Bolivia. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 30, 2016. Series C No. 329, para. 168; Case of the Pacheco Tineo Family v. Bolivia, para. 129; Case of Atala Riffo and Daughters v. Chile. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 24, 2012. Series C No. 239, para. 83; Case of Gelman v. Uruguay. Merits and reparations. Judgment of February 24, 2011. Series C No. 221, para. 78 and 121, and Case of Cuscul Pivaral et al. v. Guatemala, supra, para. 100. 183 Cf. Case of the Pacheco Tineo Family v. Bolivia, supra, para. 143 and Case of Cuscul Pivaral et al. v. Guatemala, supra, para. 101. 184 Cf. Interpretation of the American Declaration on 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. 43, and Case of Cuscul Pivaral et al. v. Guatemala, supra, para. 101. 185 Cf. The Right to Information on Consular Assistance within the Framework of the Guarantees of the Due Process of Law. Advisory Opinion OC-16/99 of October 1, 1999. Series A No. 16, para. 114, and The institution of asylum, and its recognition as a human right under the Inter-American System of Protection (interpretation and scope of Articles 5, 22(7) and 22(8) in relation to Article 1(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-25/18 of May 30, 2018. Series A No. 25, para. 137.