Our qualitative analysis begins with the evolution of Article 4 of the Political Constitution of Panama, which, when amended by the Constitutional Act of 1983, establishes that from that moment on, Panama will abide by the norms of international law, without any restrictions.

Therefore, from that moment on, the jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights to hear Panamanian cases begins to apply, as provided in paragraph 3 of Article 62 of the American Convention on Human Rights.

This jurisdiction to hear administrative acts that may violate human rights is granted by the ratification of the American Convention on Human Rights by the National Assembly, obligating not only the Inter-American Court of Human Rights itself but also its internal judges, who must ensure that the useful effect of the Convention is not diminished or annulled by the application of laws contrary to its provisions, object and purpose, as explained by the judgment of November 24, 2006 of the Inter-American Court; This is called control of conventionality.

It is precisely this diffuse control of conventionality that should be applied by our judges at all times, not only to exercise an effective separation of powers, but also to avoid the high costs and expenses that victims have to go to the IACHR to access justice.