has established that States Parties may establish requirements for a candidates registration in an election, and that in this regard, more stringent requirements may be imposed than those established for the right to vote.4 Lastly, in the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights there is no regulation similar to that of Article 23(2) of the American Convention. 12. The conceptual and normative framework of the international obligations in the fight against corruption, for their part, points to certain guidelines that govern State conduct in the implementation of the United Nations 6Convention Against Corruption5 and of the InterAmerican Convention Against Corruption. These instruments have specified obligations that are not limited to criminal proceedings to combat conduct related to the phenomenon of corruption. 7. 13. In regard to the evolutionary interpretation, this approximation has been constant in as much as the Inter-American Court as well as the European Court has established that human right treatises are living instruments, whose interpretation must accompany the evolution of the times and current living conditions. 8This Court has used comparative national law when considering domestic9 regulations or jurisprudence of domestic tribunals10 4 “States enjoy considerable latitude in establishing criteria governing eligibility to stand for election, and in general, they may impose stricter requirements in that context than in the context of eligibility to vote”. ECHR, Case of Paksas v. Lithuania, Judgment of 6 January 2001, para. 96, Case Ždanoka v. Latvia, Judgment, of 16 March 2006, para. 115; Case Ādamsons v. Latvia, Judgment of 24 June 2008, para 111; Case Tănase v. Moldova, Judgment of 27 April 2010, para. 156, y Case Yumak y Sadak v. Turkey, Judgment of 30 January 2007, para. 109. 5 Article 30(8) of the United Nations Convention Against Corruption notes that criminal action “shall be without prejudice to the exercise of disciplinary powers by the competent authorities against civil servants.” 6 In the Final Report on Venezuela, on March 25, 2010, drafted by the Inter-American Convention against Corruption and the Follow-Up Mechanism for its Implementation (MESICIC), recommendations were provided for adjusting criminal norms based on the legislation that restricts political rights in non-criminal forums. Cf. Recommendation 1.2.2. of the Final Report of March 25, 2010, related to the implementation of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela of the Convention, drafted by the Expert Committee of the the Inter-American Convention against Corruption and the Follow-Up Mechanism for its Implementation. Sixteenth Reunion of the Committee of Experts. March 22-26, 2010. Washington, DC (OEA /Ser.L. SG/MESICIC/doc.248/09 rev. 4). 7 For example, Article 8(6) of the United Nations Convention against Corruption (Codes of Conduct for Public Officials) states: “[e]ach State Party shall consider taking, in accordance with the fundamental principles of its domestic law, disciplinary or other measures against public officials who violate the codes or standards established in accordance with this article.” 8 Cf. Case of the Mapiripan Massacre V. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 134, para. 106. See also, ECHR, Case Tyrer v. The United Kingdom, Judgment of 25 April 1978, Series A no. 26, para. 31. 9 In the Case of Kawas Fernández regarding Honduras, the Court considered in its analysis “considerable number of States Parties to the American Convention have adopted constitutional provisions which expressly recognize the right to a healthy environment.” Case of Kawas Fernández V. Honduras. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of April 3, 2009, Serie C No. 196, para. 148. 10 In the case of Heliodoro Portugal and Tiu Tojín, the Court considered judgments from tribunals in Bolivia, Colombia, México, Panamá, Perú, and Venezuela regarding the nonexistence of a statute of limitations for permanent crimes such as enforced disappearance. Cf. Case of Heliodoro Portugal V. Panamá. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 12, 2008. Series C No. 186, para. 111 and Case of Tiu Tojín V. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 26, 2008. Series C No. 190, para. 87. Moreover, in the Case of Anzualdo Castro, the Tribunal used rulings of constitutional courts in American states to support the delimitation it has established for enforced disappearance. Cf. Case of Anzualdo Castro V. Perú. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 22, 2009. Series C No. 202, para. 61. Moreover, in the case of Gomes Lund et al. and Gelman, the Court took into account the rulings of the high courts of the region regarding the prohibition of amnesties in the case of gross human rights violations and the prohibition of referendums that limit access to justice of victims in these cases of grave violations. Cf. Case of Gomes Lund et al. (Guerrilha do Araguaia) V. Brazil. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. 2