Loor v. Panama (2010); 25 Gomes Lund et al. (Guerrilha do Araguaia) v. Brazil (2010), 26 and now, Cabrera García and Montiel Flores v. Mexico (2010). 27 16. Furthermore, the doctrinal jurisprudence was also applied in the orders for monitoring compliance with judgment in the Cases of Fermín Ramírez and Raxcacó Reyes, as well as in the request for “extension of provisional measures” in Raxcacó Reyes et al. all v. Guatemala. 28 This issue has also been considered in great depth by some judges of the Inter-American Court when issuing their concurring opinions, including former presidents García Ramírez 29 and Cançado Trindade, 30 as well as ad hoc judge Roberto de Figueiredo Caldas, 31 to whom I will refer later. B. CONTRIBUTIONS IN THE CASE OF CABRERA GARCÍA AND MONTIEL FLORES 17. Regarding the Judgment to which this concurring opinion refers, the essence of the doctrine of “conventionality control” is reiterated with some important specifications, in the following terms: 225. This Court has held in its case law that it is aware that domestic authorities are subject to the rule of law and, therefore, are required to apply the provisions in force within the legal system. But when a State is a Party to an international treaty such as the American Convention, all its organs, including its judges, are also bound by that treaty. This obliges them to ensure that the effects of the provisions embodied in the Convention are not impaired by the enforcement of laws which are contrary to its object and purpose. The judges and organs linked to the administration of justice at all levels are required to carry out ex officio a form of “conventionality control” between domestic legal provisions and the American Convention, obviously within the framework of their respective competences and the corresponding procedural rules. In this task, the judges and organs linked to the administration of justice must take into account not only the treaty, but also the interpretation thereof by the Inter-American Court, which is the final interpreter of the American Convention. (Underlining added). 18. As is evident, the Inter-American Court clarifies its doctrine on “conventionality control,” by replacing statements that referred to the “Judicial Branch,” which appeared since the leading case of Almonacid Arellano v. Chile 25 Case of Vélez Loor v. Panama. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 23, 2010. Series C No. 218, para. 287. 26 Case of Gomes Lund et al. (Guerrilha do Araguaia) v. Brazil. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2010. Series C No. 219, para. 106. 27 Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores v. Mexico, supra note 1, para. 225. 28 Matter of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 9, 2008, para. 63. 29 In addition to the aforementioned concurring opinions supra note 11, see also the opinions issued subsequent to the leading case of Almonacid Arellano, concerning “conventionality control”: Case of Dismissed Congressional Employees (Aguado Alfaro et al.) v. Peru, supra note 15, para. 1 to 13 of Concurring Opinion; and Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 192, para. 3 of the Concurring Opinion. 30 Cf. Concurring Opinion in the Case of Dismissed Congressional Employees (Aguado Alfaro et al.) v. Peru, supra note 15, particularly paras. 2 and 3 thereof; and the request for interpretation of the Judgment rendered in that case, on November 30, 2007, particularly paras. 5 to 12, 45 and 49, of the Dissenting Opinion. 31 Cf. Concurring Opinion in the Case of Gomes Lund et al. (Guerrilha do Araguaia) v. Brazil. supra note 4, paras. 4 and 5. 7