only the human rights enshrined in international agreements, but also the case law of the Inter-American Court. Thus, in some cases the “block of conventionality” is subsumed in the "block of constitutionality", so that by carrying out “constitutional control” one is also carrying out“conventionality control.” 27. The Inter-American Court in paragraphs 226 to 232 of the Judgment to which this concurring opinion refers, has specifically attempted to demonstrate the way in which the courts of “the highest hierarchical level” have applied and accepted “conventionality control” based on Inter-American jurisprudence. It is a clear manifestation of the interesting process of “national acceptance of international human rights law” and undoubtedly “constitutes one of the outstanding positive features to date, which should be recognized, upheld and promoted.” 44 28. In this regard, the Judgment that inspires this concurring opinion contains excerpts from several rulings of the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Costa Rica; the Constitutional Court of Bolivia; the Supreme Court of Justice of the Dominican Republic; the Constitutional Court of Peru; the Supreme Court of Justice of Argentina; and the Constitutional Court of Colombia. These are some examples that illustrate the dynamic national acceptance of international human rights law and conventional jurisprudence. 29. A closer examination of the aforementioned rulings shows that some criteria were adopted prior to the Praetorian establishment of “conventionality control” in the Case of Almonacid Arellano v. Chile of 2006, as occurred with the precedents of Argentina (2004) Costa Rica (1995), Colombia (2000), Dominican Republic (2003) and Peru (2006). Clearly, the Inter-American Court created the doctrine of “diffuse conventionality control” noting the trend toward the “constitutionalization” or “nationalization” 45 of “international human rights law” and particularly the acceptance of conventional jurisprudence as a "hermeneutic" element and for the “control” of domestic regulations by the domestic courts themselves. In other words, the Inter-American Court received the influx of jurisprudential practice by the national judges in order to create the new doctrine of “diffuse conventionality control.” 30. In turn, we find that several high national courts incorporated the parameters of “diffuse conventionality control” by recognizing the jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court following the creation of that doctrine in 2006. It is important to mention the landmark ruling of Argentine’s Supreme Court in 2007 (Case "Mazzeo"), 46 which establishes the obligation of the local Judiciary to 44 Para. 9 of the Concurring Opinion issued by Judge Sergio García Ramírez in the Judgment in the Case of the Dismissed Congressional Employees (Aguado Alfaro et al.) v. Peru, supra note 15. 45 Cf. García-Sayán, Diego, “Una Viva Interacción: Corte Interamericana y Tribunales Internos”, op. cit., supra note 6. 46 Case of “Mazzeo, Lulio Lilo et al. s/Recurso de Casación and Inconstitucionalidad, of July 13, 2007. On this important general ruling concerning the evolving nature of acceptance of international law by the Supreme Court of Justice of Argentina, See Bazán, Víctor, “El derecho internacional en la jurisprudencia de la Corte Suprema de Justicia, con particular énfasis en materia de derechos humanos”, [International law in the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court of Justice, and with particular emphasis in matters of human rights] in La Ley, Suplemento Extraordinario (75 Aniversario), Buenos Aires, August 2010, pp. 1-17, particularly in the Case of “Mazzeo” See pp. 10, 11 and 16; also, Hitters, Juan Carlos, “Control de constitucionalidad y control de convencionalidad. Comparación. (Criterios fijados por la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos)” [Constituitonality Control and Conventionality Control. A Comparison. (Criteria established by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights)] in Estudios Constitucionales, Santiago, Centro de Estudios Constitucionales de Chile/Universidad de Talca, Año 7, N° 2, 2009, pp. 109-128; and Loiano, Adelina, “El marco conceptual del control de convencionalidad en algunos fallos de la Corte Suprema Argentina: “Arancibia Clavel”, “Simón”, “Mazzeo”, [Conceptual framework for conventionality control in some rulings of the Argentine Supreme Court: ‘Arancibia 11