19 State is internationally responsible for the acts or omissions of any of its powers or bodies for the violation of internationally protected rights, pursuant to Article 1(1) of the American Convention. […] The Court is aware that domestic judges and courts are bound to respect the rule of law, and therefore, they are bound to apply the provisions in force within the legal system. But when a State has ratified an international treaty such as the American Convention, its judges, as part of the State, are also bound by such Convention. This forces them to see that all the effects of the provisions embodied in the Convention are not adversely affected by the enforcement of laws which are contrary to its purpose and that have not had any legal effects since their inception. In other words, the Judiciary must exercise a sort of “conventionality control” between the domestic legal provisions which are applied to specific cases and the American Convention on Human Rights [evidently, within the framework of its corresponding competences and the corresponding procedural regulations]. To perform this task, the Judiciary has to take into account not only the treaty, but also the interpretation thereof made by the Inter-American Court, which is the ultimate interpreter of the American Convention.7 * * * 64. That the Court values the relevance of the hearing held to monitor the issues pending compliance in these cases. 65. That the Court shall consider the general status of compliance with the issues pending compliance of the Judgments delivered in the cases of Fermín Ramírez and Raxcacó Reyes, once it obtains the corresponding information. THEREFORE: THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS, by virtue of its authority to monitor compliance with its own decisions and pursuant to Articles 33, 62(1), 62(3), 65, 67 and 68(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights, and Articles 25(1) and 30 of its Statute and 29(2) of its Rules of Procedure, DECLARES: A) Regarding the case of Fermín Ramírez 1. That the State has complied with the duties established in the following operative paragraphs of the Judgment on the merits and reparations delivered by the Tribunal on June 20, 2005: a) pay the reimbursement of expenses to the Instituto de Estudios Comparados de Ciencias Políticas of Guatemala within the one-year term 7 See Case of Almonacid Arellano et al. v. Chile. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Legal Costs. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 154, para. 123 and 124, and Case of the Dismissed Congressional Employees (Aguado Alfaro et al.) v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2006. Series C No. 158. , para. 128.