Search

In order to analyze the presence or absence of dialogue between national jurisdictions and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IDH Court), the article examines in a simple way and by analogy the form of who and how jurisprudence is issued in Mexico, in such a way that understood as an integration between a federation, a national judiciary and the jurisprudence issued by federal courts, respectively, it speaks of the legal impact of human rights as an ordinary source in national rights is included, like any other branch of law, it is addresses the study both from the content and from the procedural aspect, through direct sources. The Inter-American Court is aware that national judges and courts are subject to the law and therefore obliged to apply the provisions in force in the legal system, for this reason, in this article we speak of substantive conventional law, this meaning that, Human rights are preventive because, in view of the beneficial effect, it is legally prohibited for any national norm to derogate from a conventional right, unless the provisions of the country are more beneficial from the point of view of the pro hominid principle. In general, the conventional substantive law of human rights and constitutional rights related to fundamental rights constitute a block of constitutionality or a block of conventionality, revealing that jurisprudence allows unifying criteria and giving legal certainty to the defendants within the scope of the court decisions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]