72 2011 Quebec Journal of International Law (Special Edition) duration of an itinerant session. It may be noted that the interpretation of the Convention’s obligations allows the Court, much like a constitutional court, to “ invite itself” into the member States’ legal systems in order to force them to conform with the Convention. The American Convention on Human Rights imposes a number of general obligations upon the States aimed at respecting and guaranteeing rights and liberties. 52 There are three such obligations, forming the matrix of the Convention: the obligation to respect and guarantee Convention rights (Article 1(1)); the obligation to adopt national legislative measures (Article 2); and the obligation to develop judicial remedies against violations of fundamental rights (Article 25(2)). The Inter-American Court has interpreted these measures in a wide and liberal manner, thus extending the impact of conventional obligations beyond their literal meaning. It is in the light of these general obligations that the alleged violations are evaluated. The American Convention’s obligations system – a genuine “ octopus” system – is based on these three series of obligations which, in theory, are each addressed to a different branch of power: the obligation to respect and guarantee is addressed to the executive, the obligation to adopt national measures to the legislature, and the obligation to organize remedies to the judiciary. These obligations create a coherent system and, to a certain degree, depend upon each other. In conformity with the Convention, therefore, the State must prevent violations of rights from taking place (notably by adopting appropriate national provisions), positively guarantee the exercise of all rights (and carry out investigations as well as punish perpetrators thereof), and permit victims to assert their rights before the primary guarantor of these rights and liberties: the national judge. This obligations system is highly successful and its effects are important not only at the national, but also at the international level. Nationally, an examination in abstracto or an “ aerial” perspective of the State system is not enough for the Court to control whether these obligations are being respected. Instead, the Court conducts a detailed analysis aimied at evaluating the nature of the measures put into place by the executive, of the laws adopted by the legislature, and of the recourse heard by the judiciary. Thus, it interferes with the State’s legal system in order to better guide the State on the path of international lawfulness. The Court is somewhat paternalistic and guides the State in its choice of methods to effectively fight violations. It checks the means of implementation chosen by the State in an objective and detailed manner in order to guarantee the

Convention''s rights and freedoms and to give full effect to the duties to prevent, investigate, sanction, and compensate which follow from the general guarantee obligation. The methods are assessed in terms of their “ reasonableness”. Thus, it is not sufficient for national authorities to have carried out an investigation, but the investigation must also have been of reasonable quality. At times, depending on the type of violation, the Court will encourage recourse to certain scientific investigative techniques, such as an autopsy in the case of an extrajudicial execution. The Court defines the criminological framework which must be respected by the State in order to

52On the general obligations of the Convention, see L. Hennebel, supra note 6 at 343 and the cited examples.