jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court which interprets those provisions. The national judges and organs charged with the administration of justice have the important mission of safeguarding not only the fundamental rights provided under domestic law, but also the set of values, principles and human rights recognized by the State when it assumed its international commitment to uphold these international instruments. Domestic judges become the first interpreters of international standards, if we consider the subsidiary, complementary, and contributory nature of the Inter-American organs with respect to those contemplated in the domestic jurisdiction of the American States and the new “mission” that they now have to safeguard the inter-American corpis juris through this new “control.” 25. This evolving process of national acceptance of international human rights law is clearly expressed in important legislative reforms in the States, which incorporate different constitutional clauses in order to allow the influx of International Law. This is evident in the recognition of the constitutional hierarchy of international human rights treatises, 36 or the acceptance of their supraconstitutional nature when they are more favorable; 37 recognition of their specificity in this matter; 38 acceptance of the pro homine or favor libertatis principles as interpretive national criteria; 39 the incorporation of "open clauses" to incorporate other rights under convention regulations; 40 or in constitutional clauses to interpret rights and freedoms “in accordance with” international human rights instruments, 41 among other scenarios. 42 In this way, conventional standards acquire constitutional status. 26. The process described above of incorporating international human rights law at national level, is also due to the domestic courts, especially the higher constitutional judicial bodies, which have progressively favored dynamic interpretations that promote and enable the acceptance of human rights established in international treaties. 43 This forms a true “constitutional block” or mass which, though it varies from country to country, takes into consideration not 36 In an explicit manner, for example, in Argentina (Art. 73) and the Dominican Republic (Art. 74(3) of the new Constitution proclaimed in January 2010). 37 Bolivia (Art. 256); Ecuador (Art. 424); and Venezuela (Art. 23). 38 Regardless of the established regulatory hierarchy, a large number of constitutional texts recognize some level of specificity to international human rights agreements, for example, in Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Ecuador, Guatemala, Colombia, Paraguay, Peru, Dominican Republic and Venezuela. Moreover, in the Federal Mexican Entities of Sinaloa, Tlaxcala, and Querétaro. 39 For example, in Peru (Art. 4); Ecuador (Art. 417); and in the new Constitution of the Dominican Republic of January 2010 (art. 74.4). 40 For example, Brazil (Article 5.LXXVII.2), Bolivia (art. 13.II), Colombia (art. 94), Ecuador (art. 417), Panama (art. 17), Peru (art. 3), Dominican Republic (art. 74.1) y Uruguay (art. 72). 41 For example, Bolivia (Art. 13.IV), Colombia (Art. 93), Haiti (Art. 19) and in the Federal Mexican Entities of Sinaloa (4º Bis C), Tlaxcala (Article 16 B) and Querétaro (Considering para. 15). 42 On the “interpretation pursuant” to the international pacts, see Caballero, José Luis, La incorporación de los tratados internacionales sobre derechos humanos en Mexico y España, [The incorporation of international treatises on human rights in Mexico and Spain], Mexico, Porrúa, 2009. 43 Two of the most representative constitutional jurisdictions which have adopted outstanding interpretations to encourage the applicability of international human rights treaties since the early nineties are the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Costa Rica and the Constitutional Court of Colombia. The first granted supranational status to international human rights treaties when their provisions are more favorable than those provided in the Constitution. The second acknowledged said treatises within the "constitutional block.” Both Courts have subsequently made significant progress in this area. 10