4 11. In its recent jurisprudence, both in the form of advisory opinions and judgments on contentious cases, the Inter-American Court has held that a child’s substantive and procedural rights are to be preserved in any and all circumstances. Underlying this notable development is the Kantian concept of the human person – children included, of course- as an end unto himself; this means all human beings, regardless of their juridical capacity (to exercise). That development is informed by the fundamental principle of respect for the dignity of the human person, irrespective of his existential condition. By virtue of that principle, every human being, no matter what his situation or circumstance, has a right to dignity. This fundamental principle is echoed in a number of international treaties and human rights instruments.7 Indeed, in our time, the recognition and consolidation of the human being’s position as a full subject of the International Law of Human Rights is an unequivocal and eloquent expression of today’s humanization of International Law itself (the new jus gentium of our times)8. II. The Broad Scope of Due Process of Law. 12. One of the central issues in the Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute” that the Court examined in the Judgment it just delivered, is that of preventive imprisonment [or preventive detention or preventive custody]. In practice, preventive imprisonment has become a curse now afflicting thousands and thousands of forgotten souls in detention centers around the world. In its Judgment in this case, the Court warns against the excesses and abuses of this practice, pointing out that preventive detention must be for the shortest time possible. The Court also reminds us of the special precautions that must be taken when children are deprived of their liberty. And, as the Court also points out, preventive imprisonment is limited by universally recognized general principles of law (such as the presumption of innocence and the principles of necessity and proportionality). If those principles are not being observed, then preventive detention becomes an unlawful form of advance punishment without conviction (paragraphs 229-231). At the substantive level and in keeping with the case law that the Court established in the Case of the “Street Children” (Merits, 1999), the Court uses the concept of the right to life latu sensu, so that it also encompasses the right to live in dignity (paragraphs 151-152, 156, 160-161, 164, 167-168 and 170). 13. Here, once again, the role and importance of the general principles of law that, on a broader plane, permeate and steer due process of law as a whole, become more self-evident. In Advisory Opinion OC-9/87, on Judicial Guarantees in States of Emergency, the Inter-American Court had occasion to clarify the broad scope of due process of law under Article 8 of the American Convention on Human Rights. The Court wrote that Article 8 includes the procedural requirements and prerequisites that courts must observe in order to ensure adequate protection of those persons whose rights or obligations are pending judicial determination; in other words, in order for those requirements and prerequisites to function as real judicial guarantees in the sense of the American Convention.9 The concept of due process of law 7 See, for example, the preambles of the United Nations’ 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child; of the Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights in the Area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (Protocol of San Salvador, 1988), and others. 8 See, on this subject, A.A. Cançado Trindade, Tratado de Direito Internacional dos Direitos Humanos, Volume III, Porto Alegre/Brazil, S.A. Fabris Ed., 2003, pp. 447-497. 9 IACtHR, Advisory Opinion OC-9/87 (October 6, 1987) on Judicial Guarantees in States of Emergency, Series A, No. 9, paragraphs 27-28.