The exigencies that the Inter-American Court of Human Rights has established through its jurisprudence to exert the internal control of conventionality, as well as the reflections that most of the doctrine has done on the subject, show various problems, whether if following such control produces the inapplicability of the domestic rule or if an interpretation harmonizes the domestic and the international law. Such problems affect the work of national judges as much as the implementation of said control, up to the point that it could remain illusive. This paper analyses these inconveniences in an organic way from within the affected legal orders, given that the theory of conventionality control has been generally elaborated from the fundamental optic of international law.