jurisprudence is mandatory for all Mexican judges in terms of applicable standards, we believe it should be harmonized to ensure a greater development of “diffuse conventionality control” in light of Article 133 and of the four judgments issued so far by the Inter-American Court regarding the Mexican State, which have applied that doctrine. 71. The foregoing criteria established by Mexico's highest court comprise “constitutional interpretations” that could eventually change, either through new insights or due to constitutional reforms. 72. At present, two constitutional reform bills are being processed which are of major importance for human rights 98 and amparo. 99 Both have been approved by the Senate and are pending approval by the Chamber of Deputies. If these should eventually be incorporated into constitutional text, will surely lead to “new thinking” in the Mexican Supreme Court regarding the interpretative criteria mentioned above. Regardless of its approval and of the “consultation process” undertaken by the President of the Supreme Court during the plenary session held on May 26, 2010, regarding the Federal Judiciary’s compliance with the Judgment in the Case of Radilla Pacheco 100, the fact is that in this particular international “INTERNATIONAL TREATIES. CONFLICTS THAT ARISE IN RELATION TO HUMAN RIGHTS SHOULD BE ANALYZED AT THE CONSTITUTIONAL LEVEL. Treaties or conventions on human rights signed by the Mexican government must be placed at the level of the Constitution of the United Mexican States, because these instruments were designed as an extension of the provisions of Basic Law concerning human rights, inasmuch as these constitute the purpose and object of the institutions. Thus, the principles governing subjective public law must be adapted to the different purposes of the means of defense contemplated in the Constitution itself and, in accordance with Article 133 thereof, the Mexican authorities must respect them; therefore under no circumstances may they disregard these in acting within their jurisdiction." (Underlining added) Published in the Semanario Judicial de la Federación y su Gaceta, TCC, Tome XXXI, May 2010, p. 2079). 98 The following aspects of this reform are especially relevant here: "Article 1. Everyone in the United Mexican States shall enjoy the rights recognized by this Constitution and international treaties on human rights to which the Mexican State is a party, as well as the guarantees for their protection, which cannot be restricted or suspended except in the cases and under the terms established by this Constitution. Human rights standards shall be interpreted in accordance with this Constitution and with the aforementioned international human rights treaties. All authorities, within the framework of their competences, have an obligation to promote, respect, protect, and guarantee human rights in accordance with the principles of universality, interdependence, indivisibility and progressiveness. Consequently, the State shall prevent, investigate, punish and repair violations of human rights under the terms established by law.” (Underlining added.) 99 Article 103, part I, of this reform notes: “Article 103. The Federal courts shall settle all disputes that arise: I. Regarding general rules, actions or omissions by the authorities that violate human rights and guarantees for their protection recognized under this Constitution, as well as by international treaties to which the Mexican State is a party.” (Underlining added). 100 The “consultation process” corresponds to File 489/2010, the draft bill having been discussed by the Plenary of the Supreme Court on August 31, 2, 6, and 7 September 2010. The debate during those four days was of the utmost importance for the relationship between domestic and international human rights law, since it reflected positions for and against "diffuse conventionality control;" however, by a majority, it was decided to restrict the consultation to a statement about the possible involvement of the federal judicial power in implementing the ruling of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in the “Case of Cabrera and Montiel Flores García.” Thus the matter was submitted to another Minister in order to define the specific obligations of the Federal Judiciary and how to apply these. Significantly, in this "consultation process" the Supreme Court established, by a majority, the object of analysis, noting, inter alia, "it will be necessary to interpret the scope of reservations or interpretative declarations made by the Mexican State, both in adhering to the American Convention [sic] on Human Rights and the Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons, given the impact that such exceptions would have on the specific case, and other international disputes to which the United Mexican States could also be a party in the future. "(Underlining added). 26