that both jurisdictions (the domestic and the international) must, necessarily, have regard to “domestic” and “conventional” norms under certain circumstances. This occurs, for example, in assessing the legality of a detention. The action taken by domestic bodies (including the judges), in addition to applying the norms required by the domestic courts, are required to follow the guidelines and rules of those international treatises that the State, exercising its sovereignty, expressly recognized and assumed international commitments. For its part, the international jurisdiction must assess the legality of the detention in light of domestic laws, given that the American Convention itself refers to domestic legislation in order to examine conformity with the Convention of the actions taken by the domestic authorities, since Article 7(2) of the Pact of San Jose refers to “the constitution of the State Party concerned or to the laws established in accordance with it” in order to properly rule on the lawfulness of the detention as a parameter for conformity with the convention. The domestic judges, on the other hand, must comply with other provisions enshrined in Article 7, so as to not violate the conventional right to personal liberty, having regard to the interpretation of its provisions given by the Inter-American Court. 8. In order to determine whether the actions of national judges are compatible with the Pact of San Jose, in certain cases it will be necessary to analyze their actions in light of domestic laws and always having regard to the American Convention, especially to assess what we might call “the conventional due process standard” (in broad terms). 7 This analysis, therefore, cannot constitute a “preliminary matter,” but rather it essentially represents a “decision on the merits,” in which, inter alia, would require analysis of whether the exercise of “conventionality control” by the domestic courts was compatible with the obligations assumed by the respondent State and according to Inter-American jurisprudence itself. 9. The foregoing considerations, of course, do not grant absolute jurisdiction to the Inter-American Court to review, in any case or circumstance, the actions of the domestic judges in light of domestic legislation, since this would imply reexamining the facts, assessing the evidence, and rendering a judgment that may possibly serve to confirm, modify or reverse a domestic verdict, something that is clearly beyond the competence of said international jurisdiction, since it would be replacing the domestic jurisdiction and violating its essential subsidiary and complimentary nature. Thus, the conventional guarantees rest on the aforementioned “principle of subsidiarity”, expressly recognized in Article 46(1)(a) of the American Convention itself, which clearly stipulate as a requisite for action by the Inter-American bodies, “that the remedies under domestic law have been interaction: Inter-American Court and Domestic Courts] in the Inter-American Court of Human Rights: a Quarter Century: 1970-2004, San José, Inter-American Court of Human Rights, 2005, pp. 323-384. 7 Although “due process” is not expressly stated in the American Convention, the rights contained in the Treaty and the development of the Inter-American Court’s jurisprudence, have created, what might be termed “conventional due process” composed of various rights. In an interesting concurring opinion, Sergio García Ramírez notes that "[...] Among the issues examined most frequently by the Inter-American Court is the so-called due process of law, a concept developed by Anglo-American case law and regulations. The Pact of San Jose does not literally invoke “due process”. However, using other words, it organizes the system of hearing, defense and decision contained in that concept. It fulfills this mission – essential for the protection of human rights – in different ways and with different provisions, including Article 8, which is entitled “Right to a Fair Trial” (Note: “Judicial Guarantees” in Spanish). The purpose of this Article is to ensure that those State bodies called upon to determine an individual’s rights and obligations – in many aspects – will do so using a procedure that provides the individual with the necessary means to defend his legitimate interests and obtain duly reasoned and justified rulings, so that he is protected by the law and safeguarded from arbitrariness. (Para. 3, of the Concurring Opinion issued in relation to the Judgment in the Case of Claude Reyes et al. v. Chile. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 19, 2006. Series C No. 151). 3