Mexican judges is “immediate” and “regardless of any legislative reforms that the State should adopt” (Amendment to Article 57 of the Code of Military Justice). This becomes more important when considering the text of Article 13 of the Mexican Federal Constitution, 109 a provision that the Inter-American Court deemed compliant with the Convention and, therefore, the interpretations of secondary legislation must be compliant with the Constitution and the American Convention: 110 In practical terms, as this Court has established, the interpretation of Article 13 of the Mexican Constitution must be consistent with the constitutional and conventional principles of due process and access to justice contained in Article 8(1) of the American Convention and the relevant provisions of the Mexican Constitution. 111 78. Furthermore, it also requires the Mexican judges to always carry out “diffuse conventionality control”, not only for deciding in specific cases the criteria for the material and personal jurisdiction of the military courts mentioned in the judgments issued by the Inter-American Court, but in general in all matters within its jurisdiction, where the Inter-American Court makes interpretations of the interAmerican corpus juris, given that this court is the final and definitive interpreter of the Pact of San Jose (objective aspect of the interpreted provision). 112 79. Indeed, as noted previously (supra paras. 51, 52, and 63), the InterAmerican Court’s jurisprudence has a “direct effect” on all States that have expressly accepted its jurisdiction, regardless of whether it concerns a matter in which they have not participated formally as a “material party.” This is due to the effects of the interpreted conventional provision, which produces “spillover effects” of conventional case-law and not only subjective efficacy for the protection of the rights or liberties in a particular case submitted to its jurisdiction. In this sense, conventional jurisprudence is not simply guidance, 113 but is also mandatory for Mexican judges (in its subjective and objective dimensions) and its effectiveness begins when international rulings are notified or transmitted to the Mexican State, under the terms of Article 69 the American Convention on Human Rights and regardless of the domestic procedure undertaken by the Mexican organs and authorities to coordinate its implementation and enforcement, as well as other acts carried out to make known and adopt the judgment and international jurisprudence. 109 In this regard, the provision states: “Article 13. (…) the military jurisdiction subsists for crimes against and violations of military discipline, but the military courts may not, in any case and for any reason, extend their jurisdiction over persons outside the army. When a crime or lack of military law involves a civilian, the competent civil authority shall hear the case.” 110 Case of Rosendo Cantú et al. v. Mexico, supra note 22, para. 218. 111 Cf. Case of Radilla Pacheco v. United Mexican States, supra note 19, para. 338. 112 See supra para. 63 and 75. 113 See the Thesis I.7o.C.51 K, of the Seventh Collegiate Tribunal on Civil Matters of the First Circuit, whose rubric and test are: “INTERNATIONAL JURISPRUDENCE: ITS GUIDANCE ON MATTERS OF HUMAN RIGHTS. Once incorporated into the Supreme Law of the Union in the international treatises by Mexico, in matters of human rights, and given the recognition of the contentious jurisdiction of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights, it is possible to invoke the jurisprudence of said international tribunal as guidance when interpreting and complying with the provisions of protection of the human rights.” (Underlining added). Published in the Semanario Judicial de la Federación y su Gaceta, TCC, Tome XXVIII, December 2008, p. 1052. 29