has not been constantly upheld by the Inter-American Court and depends on the specific case. 70 55. We believe that in the future, the Inter-American Court will need to define more precisely this sensitive issue of the temporality of the effects of national standards not in conformity with the Convention because its jurisprudence is not clear. It should not be forgotten that, in principle, any human rights violation must offer a comprehensive remedial effect and, consequently, this effect must reach back into the past, when required, in order to achieve that goal. 56. This is established in Article 63(1) of the American Convention, which states: If the Court finds that there has been a violation of a right or freedom protected by this Convention, the Court shall rule that the injured party be ensured the enjoyment of his right or freedom that was violated. It shall also rule, if appropriate, that the consequences of the measure or situation that constituted the breach of such right or freedom be remedied and that fair compensation be paid to the injured party. (Underlining added) 57. Although that provision refers to the attributes of the Inter-American Court, mutatis mutandis, it should be applied by domestic judges because they are also Inter-American judges when they carry out “diffuse conventionality control. And this means ensuring, as far as possible, the effective enjoyment of the right or freedom infringed. This leads to the affirmation that, in certain cases, the consequences of standards that do not conform to the Convention must be repaired, which can only be achieved by “revoking" these national standards from the outset, and not based on their non-application or a declaration of non-conformity with the Convention. In other words, retroactivity is necessary in some cases in order to achieve an adequate enjoyment or exercise of the relevant right or freedom. This affirmation is also consistent with the Inter-American Court’s case-law in its interpretation of Article 63(1) of the Pact of San Jose, which considers that any violation of an international obligation that has caused damage must be “appropriately” repaired. 71 This constitutes “one of the fundamental principles of contemporary international law on State responsibility.” 72 f) Legal basis of “diffuse conventionality control”: the Pact of San Jose and the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 58. From the inception of the jurisprudential doctrine on this type of control, in the Case of Almonacid Arellano v. Chile, 73 the following was established: 70 Cf., For example, Case of Dismissed Congressional Employees (Aguado Alfaro et al.) v. Peru, supra note 15, para. 128; Case of Indigenous Community Xármok Kásek v. Paraguay, supra note 21, para. 311; Case of Fernández Ortega et al. v. Mexico, supra note 22, para. 234; Rosendo Cantú et al. v. Mexico, supra note 23, para. 234; and Case of Vélez Loor v. Panama, supra note 25, para. 287. 71 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras, supra note 5, para. 25; Case of Chitay Nech et al.. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 25, 2010. Series C No. 212 para. 227; and Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas. Preliminary Objections, Merits and Reparations. Judgment of May 26, 2010. Series C No. 213, para. 211. 72 Cf. Case of Castillo Páez v. Peru. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 1998. Series C No. 43, para. 43; Case of Chitay Nech et al., supra note 71, para. 227, and Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas, supra note 71, para. 211. 73 Supra note 12, para. 125. 20