85 303. The jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court to determine the validity of a reservation, in light of the mentioned Article XIX of the CIDFP, can be clearly concluded from Article XIII of said instrument, in relation with Article 62 of the American Convention, which establish the Court’s ability to hear the matters related with the compliance of the commitments acquired by the State Parties to the CIDFP. This jurisdictional power covers not only the analysis of substantive rules, that is those that include the protected rights, but also the verification of the compliance with all procedural rules in which the interpretation and application of the same is involved. In this tenor, the Court has established that the reservations made by the State Parties “are included in the treaty itself, thus it is not possible to interpret it completely, with regard to the State that makes the reservation, without interpreting the reservation itself.”293 The Human Rights Committee of the United Nations has expressed a similar position.294 Likewise, in the case of Belilos v. Switzerland, the European Court of Human Rights reaffirmed its jurisdiction to exercise control of the validity in matters of reservations.295 304. This Court has repeatedly stated that the modern treaties on human rights, as is the case of the CIDFP, “are not multilateral treaties of a traditional type, concluded in function of a reciprocal exchange of rights for the mutual benefit of the contracting States. Its objective and purpose is the protection of the fundamental rights of human beings […]. Upon approving these human rights treaties, the States submit to a legal order within which they, for the common good, assume several obligations, not with regard to other States, but towards individuals under their jurisdiction.” 296 The International Court of Justice and the Human Rights Committee have had the same understanding.297 305. Taking into account the aforementioned, prior to the ruling on the alleged violation of Article IX of the CIDFP, this Court shall determine if the reservation made by Mexico to that 293 Cf. Restrictions to the Death Penalty (Arts. 4(2) and 4(4) American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-3/83 of September 8, 1983. Series A No. 3, para. 45. 294 Said Committee has stated that “It must necessarily be the Committee who decides if a specific reservation is compatible with the objective and purpose of the [International] Pact [on Civil and Political Rights]. This is due in part […] to the fact that it refers to an inadequate task for the State Parties in relation with the human rights treaties and, in part, to the fact that it is a task that the Committee cannot elude while fulfilling its tasks. In order to know the scope of its duty to examine compliance of the Pact by a State by virtue of that stated in Article 40 or a communication presented in accordance with the First Optional Protocol, the Committee shall necessarily adopt an opinion on the compatibility of the reservation with the objective and purpose of the Pact and with international law in general. Given the special nature of the human rights treaties, the compatibility of a reservation with the objective and purpose of the Pact in relation with a juridical principle shall be objectively established and the Committee is in especially adequate conditions to carry out that task […].” Cf. General Observation No. 24: General Observation regarding matters related to the reservations made based on the ratification of the Pact or its Optional Protocols or the adherence to the same, or with regard to the statements made pursuant with Article 41 of the Pact, CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.6, para. 18. 295 The European Court indicated that: “The silence of the depositary and the Contracting States [with regards of the reservations and interpretative declarations contained in Switzerland’s instrument of ratification] does not deprive the Convention’s institutions of the power to make their own assessment,” (translation of the Secretariat), Cf. Eur. Ct. H.R., Case of Belilos v. Switzerland, Application no. 10328/83, 29 April 1988, para. 47. 296 Cf. The Effect of Reservations on the Entry into Force of the American Convention on Human Rights. Advisory Opinion OC-2/82 of September 24, 1982. Series A No. 2, para. 29. In the same sense, Cf. Case of the Mapiripán Massacre v. Colombia, supra note 129, para. 104; Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia, supra note 133, para. 51, and Case of López Álvarez v. Honduras. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of February 1, 2006. Series C No. 141, para. 40. 297 ICJ, Reservations to the convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Advisory Opinion, May 28, 1951, page 23. C.D.H., General Comment No. 24, supra note 294, para. 17.