15. Ultimately, what underlines everything indicated above is, on the one hand, that the inter-American jurisdiction established in the Convention is the peaceful way to resolve the disputes that arise among its States Parties in relation to respect for the human rights of the persons subject to their respective jurisdictions and, on the other, that the Court, when proceeding in conformity with the provisions of the Convention, provides its rulings with the necessary corresponding legal certainty. And, all this considering that the law is the means to achieve justice and justice the means to achieve peace. B. The role of the individual opinion 16. This partially dissenting opinion is issued with full and absolute respect for the decisions taken by the Court in this case that, consequently, must be complied with. This text cannot, therefore, be interpreted in any way or under any circumstance as detracting from the legitimacy of the decision adopted in this case. 17. Based on the foregoing consideration, I must, therefore, indicate expressly that the thesis set out in this opinion does not seek, in any way, to weaken or restrict the exercise of human rights, but rather precisely the contrary. Indeed, what I have indicated here responds to a profound certainty that effective respect for human rights is achieved if the States Parties to the Convention are required to comply with what they truly, freely and sovereignly, undertook to fulfill.29 In this regard, legal certainty plays a fundamental role and, consequently, cannot be understood to limit or restrict the development of human rights, but rather as an instrument that offers the best possible guarantee for their effective respect or, if they have been violated, for their earliest possible restoration by the corresponding State. 30 The purpose, therefore, is not only to deliver judgments that are solidly substantiated and that develop human rights, but above all, when those rights have been violated, to ensure that the State concerned re-establishes them as soon as possible. 18. Moreover, the issue of separate opinions – which may at times lead to misunderstandings and even differences or disapproval – not only constitutes the exercise of a right but, fundamentally, compliance with a duty, which is to contribute to a better understanding of the function assigned to the Court. 31 In addition, separate opinions may Supra, footnotes 24. Art. 33: “The following organs shall have competence with respect to matters relating to the fulfillment of the commitments made by the States Parties to this Convention: a) the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, referred to as "The Commission;" and b) the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, referred to as "The Court." 29 30 Supra, footnote 16. Art. 66(2): “If the judgment does not represent in whole or in part the unanimous opinion of the judges, any judge shall be entitled to have his dissenting or separate opinion attached to the judgment.” 31 Art. 24(3) of the Statute of the Court: “The decisions, judgments and opinions of the Court shall be delivered in public session, and the parties shall be given written notification thereof. In addition, the decisions, judgments and opinions shall be published, along with judges' individual votes and opinions and with such other data or background information that the Court may deem appropriate.” Art. 32(1)(a) of the Rules of Procedure: The Court shall make public: its judgments, orders, opinions, and other decisions, including separate opinions, dissenting or concurring, whenever they fulfill the requirements set forth in Article 65(2) of these Rules.” Art. 65(2) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure: “Any judge who has taken part in the consideration of a case is entitled to append a separate reasoned opinion to the judgment, concurring or dissenting. These opinions shall be submitted within a time limit to be fixed by the President so that the other Judges may take cognizance thereof before notice of the judgment is served. Said opinions shall only refer to the issues covered in the judgment.” 6