(2006), and referring now to “all the organs” of States which have ratified the American Convention, “including their judges,” who must safeguard the effet utile of the Treaty, and that “judges and organs linked to the administration of justice at all levels” are required to conduct “conventionality control” ex officio. 19. The intention of the Inter-American Court is clear: to establish that the doctrine of “conventionality control” must be exercised by “all judges,” whether or not they are formal members of the Judicial Branch, and regardless of their rank, grade, level or area of expertise. 20. Thus, there is no doubt that “conventionality control” must be carried out by any and all judges or courts that materially perform judicial functions, including, of course, the Courts, Chambers or Constitutional Courts, as well as the Supreme Courts of Justice and other high courts of the twenty-four countries which have signed and ratified or acceded to the American Convention on Human Rights, 32 and even more so, those of the twenty states that have recognized the contentious jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court, 33 out of a total of thirty-five countries that make up the OAS. C. CHARACTERIZATION OF “DIFFUSE CONVENTIONALITY CONTROL” IN LIGHT OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF ITS JURISPRUDENCE a) “Diffuse” nature: all domestic judges “must” exercise it 21. In real terms, this involves “diffuse conventionality control” given that it must be exercised by all domestic judges. Consequently, there has been an assimilation of the concepts of Constitutional Law, which has been present since the beginning and in the development of International Human Rights Law, particularly in the creation of international “guarantees” and “organs” for the protection of human rights. There has been a clear “internationalization of Constitutional Law,” particularly as regards the transfer of “constitutional guarantees” as procedural instruments for the protection of fundamental rights of “constitutional supremacy,” to “the conventional guarantees,” as judicial and quasijudicial mechanisms for the protection of human rights enshrined in international treaties when the former have not been sufficient; in a sense, this also gives rise to a “conventional supremacy.” 22. One of the expressions of this process of “internationalization” of constitutional categories is, precisely, the diffuse concept of conventionality control that we are analyzing, since it is based on the deeply-rooted connotation of “diffuse constitutional control” as opposed to “concentrated control” carried out in constitutional States by their highest “constitutional bodies,” with the final constitutional interpretations being issued by the Constitutional Tribunals, Courts or Chambers, and in some cases by the Supreme Courts and other high judicial bodies. In this sense, the Inter-American Court has been carrying out “concentrated conventionality control” since its very first judgments, examining the actions and rules of the State, in each particular case, in light of the Convention. This “concentrated control” was basically carried out by the Inter-American Court. 32 Argentina, Barbados, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Dominican Republic, Suriname, Uruguay and Venezuela. Trinidad and Tobago denounced the American Convention on Human Rights. 33 The States mentioned in the preceding footnote, except for Dominica and Jamaica (which have not yet accepted said jurisdiction) and Trinidad and Tobago (denounced in 1999). 8