11. The Inter-American Court has the express power to order provisional measures. Considering this competence, the consistent interpretation that the Court has made of such provisions has been based on methods of interpretation of international law that are derived from Articles 31 and 32 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (hereinafter "Vienna Convention"), among other principles. 12. The Vienna Convention states in Article 31(1) that "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." Repeatedly, the Court has stated that the interpretation of the "ordinary meaning of the terms" of the treaty cannot in itself be a norm, but rather it must be considered within the context and, particularly, within its object and purpose,8 such that the interpretation does not lead in any way to weaken the system of protection set forth the Convention.9 The "ordinary meaning of the terms" should be analyzed as part of a whole whose meaning and scope should be established in accordance with the judicial system to which they belong10 to ensure a harmonious interpretation of the American Convention. 13. Thus, the Court ruled "the aforementioned Article 31 incorporates several elements that conform a general interpretation norm which, in turn, can be supported with the supplementary norm referred to in Article 32 of said instrument."11 Furthermore, the Court emphasized that: International Law of Human Rights consists both of a set of norms (conventions, agreements, treaties and other international documents) and a set of values that these norms seek to develop. Therefore, the interpretation of the norms must also be executed based on a model of values that the inter-American system strives to preserve, from the 'best perspective' for the protection of the individual.12 8 Cf. Proposed Amendments to the Constitution of Costa Rica with regard to Naturalization. Advisory Opinion AO-4/84 of January 19, 1984. Series A No. 4, para. 23; Compatibility of a Bill with Article 8(2) of the American Convention on Human Rights. Advisory Opinion AO-12/91 of December 6, 1991. Series A No. 12, para. 21; Article 55 of the American Convention on Human Rights. Advisory Opinion AO-20/09 of September 29, 2009. Series A No. 20, para. 26; Case of González et al. ("Cotton Field" v. Mexico. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 16, 2009. Series C No. 205, para. 42, and Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 23, 2009. Series C No. 209, para. 30. 9 Cf. "Other treaties" object of the advisory role of the Court (Art. 64 American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion AO-1/82 of September 24, 1982. Series A No. 1, para. 43 to 48; Restrictions on the Death Penalty (Arts. 4(2) and 4(4) of the American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion AO-3/83 of September 8, 1983. Series A No. 3, para. 47 to 50; Proposed Amendments to the Constitution of Costa Rica in relation to Naturalization. Advisory Opinion OC-4/84, supra note 8, para. 20 to 24, and Case of González et al. ("Cotton Field") v. Mexico, supra note 8, para. 42. 10 Cf. The Right to Information on Consular Assistance in the Framework of the Guarantees of Due Legal Process. Advisory Opinion AO-16/99 of October 1, 1999. Series A No. 16, para. 113; Case of Ituango Massacre. Colombia. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 1 2006 Series C No. 148, para. 156, and Case of Bueno Alves v. Argentina. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C No. 164, para. 78. and Case of González et al. ("Cotton Field") v. Mexico, supra note 8, para. 43 11 Article 55 of the American Convention on Human Rights. Advisory Opinion OC-20/09, supra note 8, para. 23. 12 Case of González et al. ("Cotton Field") v. Mexico, supra note 9, para. 33. 4