96 | Report on the Situation of Human Rights in the Dominican Republic 219. The Commission must point out that the organs of the Inter-American System are not called upon to examine the domestic laws of each State as a function of its Constitution; instead, they must perform a “conventionality control”, i.e., an analysis of the alleged incompatibility of those domestic laws, practices and decisions with the States Party’s international obligations under the American Convention. 226 In this regard, both the Commission and the Court have ruled on the incompatibility of State’s laws, court rulings and/or practices practice with the American Convention 227. 220. The Commission observes that the practice of “conventionality control” has been recognized by the Dominican State in its Constitution, its laws and its case law. In its Article 74(3), the Dominican Constitution provides that “the treaties, covenants and conventions on the subject of human rights, and signed and ratified by the Dominican State, have constitutional hierarchy and are directly and immediately enforceable by the courts and other organs of the State.” Similarly, in its Resolution 1920-2013 the Supreme Court held that “the provisions of the American Convention on Human Rights and the interpretations thereof by the organs created as a means of protection to have competence vis-à-vis matters relating to the fulfillment of the commitments made by the States Parties thereto, are binding upon the Dominican State.” 221. The Commission observes that the Constitutional Court of the Dominican Republic has drawn upon the Inter-American Court’s case law and advisory opinions as the basis of any number of its own rulings, among them the following: TC/0021/12; TC/0042/12; TC/0048/12; TC/0050/12; TC/0008/13; TC/0017/13; TC/0050/13; TC/0062/13; TC/0084/13; TC/0136/13; TC/0163/13; TC/0168/13; TC/0203/13; TC/0242/13; TC/0268/13; TC/0275/13; TC/0286/13; TC/0006/14; TC/0016/14; TC/0082/14; TC/0119/14; TC/0162/14; TC/0193/14; TC/0272/14; TC/0319/14; and TC/0344/14. In the specific case of judgment TC/0050/12, the Constitutional Court held that “the single paragraph of Article 382 of the Code of Civil Procedure is unconstitutional because it violates the fundamental right to an impartial judge recognized in Article 69(2) of the Constitution of the Republic; Article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; Article 8 of the American Convention on 226 227 I/A Court H.R., Case of Gomes Lund et al. (Guerrilha do Araguaia) v. Brazil. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2010. Series C No. 219. Para. 49. I/A Court H.R. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 2nd, 2001. Series C No. 72, par. 126; I/A Court H.R. Case of “The Last Temptation of the Christ” (Olmedo Bustos et al.) v. Chile. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 5th, 2001. Series C No. 73, par. 88; I/A Court H.R. Case of La Cantuta v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 29th, 2006. Series C No. 162, para. 174. ; I/A Court H.R. Case of Boyce et al. v. Barbados. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 20th, 2007. Series C No. 169, para. 77 and 78.; I/A Court H.R. Case of Xákmok Kásek indigenous community v. Paraguay. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 24th , 2010. Series C No. 214, par. 313.; I/A Court H.R. Case of Fernández Ortega et al. v. Mexico. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 30th, 2010. Series C No. 215, para. 237.; I/A Court H.R. Case of Rosendo Cantú et al. v. Mexico. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. st Judgment of August 31 , 2010. Series C No. 216, para. 220.; I/A Court H.R. Case of López Mendoza v. st Venezuela. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 1 , 2011. Series C No. 233 par. 228; I/A Court H.R. Case of Artavia Murillo et al. (In Vitro Fertilization) v. Costa Rica. Preliminary th Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 28 , 2012. Series C No. 257. Organization of American States | OAS