6 the general principles of law (prima principia) which confer to the legal order (both national and international) its ineluctable axiological dimension; it is they that reveal the values which inspire the whole legal order and which, ultimately, provide its foundations themselves. This is how I conceive the presence and the position of the principles in any legal order, and their role in the conceptual universe of Law. (...) From the prima principia the norms and rules emanate, which in them find their meaning. The principles are thus present in the origins of Law itself. The principles show us the legitimate ends to seek: the common good (of all human beings, and not of an abstract collectivity), the realization of justice (at both national and international levels), the necessary primacy of law over force, the preservation of peace. Contrary to those who attempt - in my view in vain - minimize them, I understand that, if there are no principles, nor is there truly a legal system. Without the principles, the "legal order" simply is not accomplished, and ceases to exist as such. (paragraphs 44 and 46). 17. In its jurisprudence constante, the Court has always relied upon general principles of law.14 Some general principles of law (such as the principles of equality and non-discrimination) are truly fundamental as they embody values and are built into the very foundation of the legal system. In the realm of the International Law of Human Rights, these fundamental principles include the principle of the dignity of the human person (which goes to the very purpose of law) and the principle of the inalienability of the human person’s inherent rights (which ties in with a premise that is basic to the construction of any corpus juris of the International Law of Human Rights). As I pointed out in my Concurring Opinion on the Court’s recent Advisory Opinion OC-18, in reality those principles "form the substratum of the legal order itself, revealing the right to the Law of which all human beings are titulaires,15 independently of their [...] citizenship or any other circumstance" (paragraph 55). 18. As I see it, paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 8 of the American Convention on Human Rights establish not just prerequisites of due process of law or guidelines for its observance, but also true general principles of law (the principle of effective recourse to a competent, independent and impartial judge or tribunal, the principle of presumption of innocence) that serve as the compass and guide of due process of law. Among these principles are the afore-mentioned judicial guarantees provided for in articles 7(6) and 25(1) of the American Convention. My approach to the relationship between articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention is, therefore, to view them as an aggregate rather than separately, and thus maximize protection of the rights upheld in the Convention. I therefore concur with the Court’s finding that Article 8(1) of the American Convention was violated in the instant case; regrettably, however, I do not concur with the reasoning that the Court followed to conclude that 14 Cf. IACtHR, Case of the Five Pensioners vs. Peru. Judgment of February 28, 2003, para. 156; IACtHR, Case of Cantos vs. Argentina, Preliminary Objections, Judgment of September 7, 2001, para. 37; IACtHR, Baena Ricardo et al. vs. Panama, Judgment of February 2, 2001, para. 98; IACtHR, Neira Alegría vs. Peru, Preliminary Objections, Judgment of December 11, 1991, para. 29; IACtHR, Velásquez Rodríguez vs. Honduras (Judgment of July 29, 1988), para. 184; see also IACtHR, Advisory Opinion OC-18/2003, on the Juridical Condition and Rights of Undocumented Migrants (September 17, 2003), paragraphs 83-110 and 157; IACtHR, Advisory Opinion OC-17/2002, on the Juridical Condition and Human Rights of the Child, August 28, 2002, paragraphs 66 and 87; IACtHR, Advisory Opinion OC-16/99, The Right to Information on Consular Assistance in the Framework of the Guarantees of Due Process of Law, October 1, 1999, paragraphs 58, 113 and 128; IACtHR, Advisory Opinion OC-14/94, International Responsibility for the Promulgation and Enforcement of Laws in Violation of the Convention (Arts. 1 and 2 of the American Convention on Human Rights), December 9, 1994, para. 35. 15 A.A. Cançado Trindade, Tratado de Direito Internacional dos Direitos Humanos, Vol. III, pp. 524525tomo III, Porto Alegre/Brazil, S.A. Fabris Ed., 2003, pp. 524-525.