The SCCD reserves the right to withdraw the payment from the applicant or to compel the applicant to return payments received from the CSCD if the applicant`s benefit is not in accordance with the provisions of the subsequent agreement or if it does not comply with the SCCD, TDCJ-CJAD or applicable guidelines. First, it is true that section 31 is called the “general rule.” However, this does not support the conclusion that section 31, point 1, of the interpretation procedure is “not a priority”. There are things worth talking about in section 31. First, Article 31, paragraph 3, as Article 31, paragraph 1, is formulated in the mandatory “must,” but the order serves only to take into account subsequent agreements and subsequent practices. Ordinary faith and faith, meaning, context and purpose must not only be taken into account, but apply, contrary to non-distinctive characteristics, the meaning of the phrase: “The treaty must be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning of the terms in their context and in the light of their purpose and purpose.” It should not be forgotten that under Article 31, paragraph 3, subsequent agreements and subsequent practices should not only be taken into account in the interpretation of contracts. Article 31, paragraph 3, also provides that “relevant rules of international law” must also be taken into account. However, it is difficult to think that, in the interpretation of treaties, other relevant rules (jus dispositivum) of international law – which the parties may have amended – must have the same weight as the usual meaning, context and purpose (Article 31, paragraph 1). I have said this elsewhere: it should be noted that some observers rate the case law analysed in the reports differently. In particular, some recent ICJ opinions are seen as an acknowledgement of the practice of UN bodies as follows, by mentioning and using them either in the same direction as elements of the uniform method of Article 31, paragraph 1 of the ICT, as in the Palestinian Wall`s opinion on the practice of parallel seizures of the Security Council and the General Assembly (Article 12 of the Charter of the United Nations).  In the scientific debate that dutifully repeats reports on whether institutional practice itself should be understood as a follow-up practice within the scope of Article 31 VCLT, as a complementary material within the meaning of Article 32 of the VCLT or otherwise, the ILC does not take a very specific position, but notes that it must be considered “at least as a complementary element” to the law of international organizations.  The draft conclusion takes a differentiated, albeit hesitant, approach in which it is stated that the practice of institutions may “provoke or articulate subsequent agreements or practices of the parties” and that “self” may constitute a relevant practice of interpretation. The “established practice” of an international organization is taken into account in the interpretation of the constituent instrument.
 Reports appear to refrain from drawing scathing conclusions. In itself, this seems appropriate and leaves room for further development. On the other hand, it shows no attempt to strengthen the role of the bodies of international organizations in the interpretation of their own constituent treaty. It leaves the impression that States Parties are the decisive authors of the interpretation, while the role of other institutional actors remains unclear. The role of the expert bodies created by the treaty is the subject of particular attention in the reports. These commissions and committees can perform a variety of tasks, in which the development of technical and health standards plays a leading role. So far, they have tasks comparable to those of national experts who make contributions to legislation or its definition.