3 states that the claim has not been made under the domestic judicial system.8 10. With regard to the legal grounds, we must take into account that the InterAmerican Court, exercising its adjudicatory jurisdiction, must interpret the provisions of the American Convention, pursuant to the provisions of the Convention as well as others that might be invoked in the juridical framework of the pertinent Treaties. In this regard, Article 31(1) of the Vienna Convention on Treaties sets forth: “A treaty shall be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of its object and purpose.” The object and purpose of the American Convention aim at acknowledgment of human dignity and the need to protect all persons, ensuring their basic rights, including the development of the latter. The Inter-American Court noted that “the interpretation of a treaty must take into account not only the agreements and instruments related to the treaty (...), but also the system of which it is part”, quoting the International Court of Justice when it held that “an international instrument has to be interpreted and applied within the framework of the entire legal system prevailing at the time of the interpretation.” (Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa), notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970), Advisory Opinion, I.C.J Reports 1971, p. 16 ad 31)9. 11. With regard to the alleged violation of Article 21 of the American Convention, I believe, as the Court has asserted, that the right to private property cannot be interpreted in an isolated manner, but rather bearing in mind the overall juridical framework of which it is a part, taking into account domestic and international law.10 In this same regard, Convention No. 169 concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries sets forth, in Article 8(1), that: “In applying national laws and regulations to the peoples concerned, due regard shall be had to their customs or customary laws” and Article 8(2) asserts: “These peoples shall have the right to retain their own customs and institutions, where these are not incompatible with fundamental rights defined by the national legal system and with internationally recognized human rights. Procedures shall be established, whenever necessary, to resolve conflicts which may arise in the application of this principle.”11 8 Reply to the application para. 166 to 170, 189. 9 Advisory opinion OC - 16/99 – The Right to Information on Consular Assistance in the framework of the Guarantees of Due Criminal Process, para. 113. Separate concurring opinion of Judge Sergio García Ramírez to the Judgment on the Merits and Reparations in the case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community. 10 Article 29. Rules of Interpretation. American Convention on Human Rights; Application by the Inter-American Commission in the instant case, para. 136; I-A Court of HR. Case of the Five Pensioners. Judgment of February 28, 2003, para.103 11 Convention No. 169 concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries, adopted during the 76th International Labor Conference, held in Geneva on June 7th, 1969, ratified by Law 234/93.