for the use and exercise of fundamental rights and freedoms; 50 a judge may also opt for the most favorable interpretation as regards the applicability of the American Convention and other international human rights treaties. The InterAmerican Court itself has issued this interpretation, noting that: 51 51. For the purposes of comparison between the American Convention and the other treaties mentioned, the Court cannot avoid commenting on an interpretation suggested by Costa Rica at the hearing of November 8, 1985. According to this argument, if a right enshrined in the American Convention were regulated in a more restrictive way in another international human rights instrument, the interpretation of the American Convention would need to take into account those additional restrictions because: Otherwise, we would have to accept that what is legal and permissible in the universal sphere would constitute a violation in the American continent, which is obviously an erroneous assertion. Rather, we believe that with regard to the interpretation of treaties, it is possible to establish the criterion that the rules of a treaty or a convention must be interpreted in relation to the provisions contained in other treaties covering the same subject matter. We can also establish the criterion that the provisions of a regional treaty must be interpreted in light of the concepts and provisions contained in instruments of a universal nature. (Underlining in original text.) Certainly, it is often useful to compare the American Convention with the provisions of other international instruments – as the Court has just done in order to highlight specific aspects of the regulation of a particular right. However, that approach could never be used to incorporate into the Convention restrictive criteria that are not directly included in its text, even though they may be present in any other international treaty. 52. The foregoing conclusion is clear from the language used in Article 29, which contains the rules for the interpretation of the Convention. Subparagraph (b) of Article 29 indicates that no provision of the Convention shall be interpreted as: restricting the enjoyment or exercise of any right or freedom recognized by virtue of the laws of any State Party or by virtue of another convention to which one of the said states is a party. Consequently, if the American Convention and another international treaty are applicable to a given situation, the rule most favorable to the individual 50 This provision states: “Article 29. Restrictions Regarding Interpretation. No provision of this Convention shall be interpreted as: a). permitting any State Party, group, or person to suppress the enjoyment or exercise of the rights and freedoms recognized in this Convention or to restrict them to a greater extent than is provided for herein; b). restricting the enjoyment or exercise of any right or freedom recognized by virtue of the laws of any State Party or by virtue of another convention to which one of the said states is a party; c). precluding other rights or guarantees that are inherent in the human personality or derived from representative democracy as a form of government; or d). excluding or limiting the effect that the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man and other international acts of the same nature may have. 51 Advisory Opinion OC-5/85. November 13, 1985. Series A No. 5, concerning Compulsory Membership of an Association Prescribed by Law for the Practice of Journalism (Arts. 13 and 29 American Convention on Human Rights), para. 51 and 52. 14