- 95 relationship to the facts of this case.461 Therefore, and bearing in mind that the measures requested entail the analysis of legal norms and alleged legal advances that did not constitute the regime in force when the disciplinary proceedings against the victims in this case were held, the Court considers that it is not appropriate to make a ruling on these requests when establishing reparations in this case.462 Nevertheless, the Court recalls that when a State is party to an international treaty such as the American Convention, all its organs, including it judges, are subject to that treaty, and this obliges them to ensure that the effects of the provisions of the Convention are not lessened by the application of norms contrary to its object and purpose. Judges and bodies involved in the administration of justice at all levels, are bound to exercise ex officio a “control of conventionality” between domestic law and the American Convention, evidently within the framework of their respective jurisdictions and the corresponding procedural regulations. In this task, the judges and bodies involved in the administration of justice must take into account not only the treaty, but also the interpretation of this that has been made by the Inter-American Court, ultimate interpreter of the American Convention.463 Therefore, when applying the new disciplinary regime, the domestic authorities are obliged to take into account the interpretations of the American Convention made by the Inter-American Court in this and other cases, including those relating to the importance that disciplinary proceedings and the applicable norms are clearly and legally established, to the judicial guarantees that must be ensured in this type of proceedings, to the right to tenure, as well as to the respect for political rights, freedom of expression and the right of assembly of judges. The Court will not examine compliance with this obligation when monitoring compliance with this judgment. 308. Regarding the other measures requested, the Court considers that the delivery of this judgment and the reparations ordered in this chapter are sufficient and adequate to redress the violations suffered by the victims, and does not find it necessary to order such additional measures. D. Compensation 309. The Commission asked the Court to order reparation for the violations declared in the Merits Report, “including both pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages.” D.1) Pecuniary damage 310. The representatives argued that “[f]rom the start of the disciplinary proceedings, the [presumed] victims […] have taken steps to obtain justice and to try and reverse the decisions that have violated their rights.” They indicated that “numerous actions have been taken […] in their search for justice,” and this had entailed many hours of work. In particular, they asserted that, on May 17, 2010, Judges Chévez de la Rocha and López Lone, together with several members of the Association of Judges for Democracy, began a 15-day hunger strike to demand justice. This protest “entailed a series of expenses, including transport, telephone calls, stationary, rental of tents, and the medical care that the two [presumed] victims received.” According to the representatives, some of the expenses were assumed directly by the presumed victims. They also indicated that Mr. Chévez de la Rocha had to assume additional expenses for the treatment of his son, owing to the impossibility of using the private medical insurance offered by the Judiciary. Lastly, they argued that, owing to the passage of time, they do not have vouchers for the said expenses and, therefore, 461 To the contrary, see, Case of Expelled Dominicans and Haitians v. Dominican Republic, supra, para. 310. Also, cf. Case of Rodríguez Vera et al. (the Disappeared from the Palace of Justice) v. Colombia, supra, para. 64. 462 Similarly, Case of Mohamed v. Argentina. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 23, 2012. Series C No. 255, para. 162. 463 Cf. Case of Almonacid Arellano et al. v. Chile, supra, para. 124, and Case of Expelled Dominicans and Haitians v. Dominican Republic, supra, para. 311.