itself, but also the interpretation thereof by the Inter-American Court, which is the ultimate interpreter of the American Convention. 333 226. Thus, for example, the highest courts of the region have referred to and applied the conventionality control taking into account the interpretations issued by the Inter-American Court. The Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of Costa Rica has pointed out that: it should be noted that if the Inter-American Court of Human Rights is the natural organ to interpret the American Convention on Human Rights […], the power of its decision when interpreting the Convention and assessing domestic laws in light of this standard, either in a contentious case or in a simple consultation, shall have -in principle- the same value as the interpreted rule. 334 227. For its part, the Constitutional Court of Bolivia has stated that: In fact, the Pact of San Jose, Costa Rica, as a component of the collection of constitutional standards, is comprised of three essential parts, closely related to each other: the first is the preamble; the second is termed the dogmatic section and the third is the organic section. Precisely, Chapter VIII of this treaty regulates the Inter-American Court of Human Rights; consequently, following a “systemic” criterion of constitutional interpretation, it should be established that this body and, therefore, its decisions, also form part of this collection of constitutional standards. This is so for two specific legal reasons, namely: 1) The object of the jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and, 2) the application of the “effet utile” doctrine to judgments concerning Human Rights. 335 228. Similarly, the Supreme Court of Justice of the Dominican Republic has established that: consequently, the Dominican State and, therefore, Judiciary, are bound not only by the rules of the American Convention on Human Rights but also by interpretations thereof made by the competent organs, created as means of protection, according to Article 33, which confers competence with respect to matters relating to the fulfillment of the commitments made by the States Parties. 336 229. Furthermore, the Constitutional Court of Peru has sustained that: The binding nature of the judgments of the [Inter-American Court] does not end with the operative paragraphs (which, certainly, applies only to the State party to the proceeding), but it also extends to its grounds or ratio decidendi; moreover, in view of the [Fourth Final and Transitory Disposition (CDFT)] of the Constitution and Article V of the Preliminary Chapter of the [Constitutional Procedural Code], the judgment is binding upon all national government institutions, including in those cases in which the Peruvian State is not a state party to the proceeding. In fact, the Inter-American Court’s powers to interpret and apply the Convention, enshrined in Article 62(3) of said treaty, together with the mandate of the CDFT of the Constitution, means that an interpretation of the 333 Cf. Case of Almonacid Arellano et al. v. Chile, supra note 332, para. 124; Case of Rosendo Cantú et al. v. Mexico, supra note 30, para. 219; Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña v. Bolivia, supra note 30, para. 202. 334 Cf. Judgment of May 9, 1995 issued by the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of Costa Rica. Constitutional Motion. Opinion 2313-95 (Case File 0421-S-90), Considering clause VII. 335 Judgment issued on May 10, 2010 by the Constitutional Court of Bolivia (Case file N° 200613381-27-RAC), chapter III.3 on “The Inter-American System of Human Rights. Grounds and effects of the Judgments issued by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.” 336 Resolution N° 1920-2003 issued on November 13, 2003 by the Supreme Court of Justice of the Dominican Republic. 84