Complete Journal

of states. 39 Even with a lack of express obligation to do so, many domestic judges, in either monist or dualist countries, have interpreted domestic law in conformity with international rules and principles. 40 Consistent interpretation can render dualist systems, like Mexico's, monist in some sense 41 through the oeuvre of domestic judges.In fact, through consistent interpretation, domestic judges can use international law instruments not incorporated or otherwise received in their respective domestic legal order, so as to shape the meaning of national legal norms and principles. 42 Domestic judges use the "consistent interpretation" technique with more frequency when they have to apply domestic legal provisions to human rights protection.In fact, national judges, particularly those working in Supreme and Constitutional Courts, always try to show that their interpretations of human rights, granted by internal norms and principles, are in conformity with international human rights instruments. 43 Mexican judges are not separate from this global judicial movement toward consistent interpretation of domestic law with international human rights law.In some case law decisions, Mexican judges have interpreted national legal provisions in accordance with international human rights instruments.In 2008, a circuit tribunal considered that the illegal deprivation of liberty is contrary to Articles 1, 14, 16, 103 and 107 of the Mexican Constitution, and must be interpreted in accordance with international human rights esp.paras.8-9), all the domestic judges of EU member States have the obligation to interpret domestic law in conformity with EU Law. 39Thus, for example, Article 10-2 of the Spanish Constitution expressly states that constitutional human rights provisions shall be interpreted in conformity with international human rights treaties ratified by Spain. 40 See, for example: Supreme Court of Canada, Baker, [1999] 2 SCR 817, House of Lords of the UK, A (FC) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department (Conjoined Appeals) (2005) UKHL 71; Israeli Supreme Court, Kav La'oved Association v. Israel, HCJ 4542/02; ILDC 382 (IL2006) [37]. 41eL Boudouhi, Supra, 294. 42Jean d'aspreMont, the systeMic integration of internationaL Law By doMestic courts: doMestic Judges as architects of the consistency of the internationaL Le-gaL order, in oLe kristian fauchaLd and andré noLLkaeMper,

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.