provisions of the Convention issued in any proceeding is binding for all domestic governmental institutions, including, of course, this Court . 337 230. This Court has also established: the direct link between the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and this Constitutional Court, a link that has two facets: on the one hand, a restorative facet, given that once the violated fundamental right has been interpreted in light of the Court’s decisions, it is possible to provide adequate and effective protection; and, on the other hand, a preventive facet, given that, through its observance, it is possible to avoid the harmful institutional consequences stemming from the condemnatory judgments of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights for the legal certainty of the Peruvian State. 338 231. The Supreme Court of Justice of Argentina has acknowledged that the decisions of the Inter-American Court “are binding for the Argentine State (Art. 68(1), American Convention);” therefore, it has established that “in principle, the content of its decisions must be subordinated to the decisions of the international Court.” 339 The Supreme Court has also stated that its “interpretation of the American Convention on Human Rights must be guided by the case law of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights" given that it constitutes “an ineludible guide for interpretation by the Argentine constitutional branches of government within their sphere of competence and, therefore, also for the Supreme Court of Justice, in order to safeguard the obligations assumed by the Argentine State in the Inter-American system of Protection of Human Rights.” 340 232. For its part, the Constitutional Court of Colombia has indicated that, since the Colombian Constitution stipulates that constitutional rights and duties are to be interpreted “according to international human rights treaties ratified by Colombia,” it is understood that “the case law of the international bodies responsible for interpreting those treaties, provides a relevant interpretative criterion for defining the meaning of the constitutional rules on fundamental rights.” 341 233. Therefore, as was established in the cases of Radilla Pacheco, Fernández Ortega and Rosendo Cantú, it is necessary that the constitutional and legislative interpretations concerning the criteria for the material and personal jurisdiction of the military courts in Mexico be adapted to the principles established in the case law of this Court, which have been reiterated in the present case 342 and apply to all human rights violations allegedly committed by members of the armed forces. This means that, regardless of any legislative reforms that the State should adopt (infra para. 234) in this case, based on the conventionality control, the judicial authorities 337 Judgment issued on July 21, 2006 by the Constitutional Tribunal of Peru (case file N° 27302006-PA/TC), Ground 12. 338 Judgment 00007-2007-PI/TC issued on June 19, 2007 by the Full Constitutional Tribunal of Peru (Colegio de Abogados del Callao v. Congreso de la República), clause 26. 339 Judgment issued on December 23, 2004 by the Surpeme Court of Justice of the Republic of Argentina (Case file 224.XXXIX), “Esposito, Miguel Angel s/ motion of statute of limitation of the criminal proceeding brought by his defense,” Considering para. 6. 340 Judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice of Argentina, Mazzeo, Julio Lilo et al., Appeal for annulment and constitutional motion. M. 2333. XLII et al. of July 13, 2007, para. 20 341 Judgment C-010/00 of January 19, 2000 of the Constitutional Court of Colombia, para. 6. 342 Cf. Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico, supra note 302, para. 340; Case of Fernández Ortega et al. v. Mexico, supra note 39, para. 237; and Case of Rosendo Cantú et al. v. Mexico, supra note 30, para. 220. 85