- 12"The object and purpose of the Convention as an instrument for the protection of individual human beings also requires that Article 2 be interpreted so as to make its safeguards practical and effective."36 39. The two international human rights courts (the Inter-American and the European Courts) have thus proceeded to develop case law on the right to life, based on the reiterated affirmation of its fundamental nature, either by recognizing its comprehensive normative or material content, or by surrounding this right with all the measures – regarding both prevention and investigation – that tend to maximize its protection. We must continue resolutely in this direction. e) Conclusion 40. In my concurring opinion in Five Pensioners v. Peru (Judgment on merits and reparations of February 29, 2003) I recalled that: "(...) The [Inter-American] Court has consciously moved in the correct direction, in the exercise of one of its inherent powers, and taking both the American Convention and its interna corporis as living instruments, that require an evolutionary interpretation (as stated in its consistent case law),37 to attend to the changing needs of the protection of the individual" (para. 16). 41. The Inter-American Court, in keeping with its evolutionary interpretation of the American Convention,38 could not avoid, as it did in this judgment, proceeding to develop the necessary case law to which I referred above. In summary, I do not see how the Court could fail to conclude that the respondent State has violated the right to identity (with its components embodied in Articles 18 and 17 of the American Convention, supra, on the rights to a name and to the protection of the family) in relation to Article 1(1) of the Convention, to the detriment of Ernestina and Erlinda 36 ECourtHR, petitions Nos. 43577/98 and 43579/98, Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria, para. 92, and cf. para. 175. 37 Cf., in this regard, the obiter dicta in: Inter-American Court of Human Rights (ICourtHR), Advisory Opinion OC-10/89, on the Interpretation of the American Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man in the Framework of Article 64 of the American Convention on Human Rights, of July 14, 1989, paras. 37-38; ICourtHR, Advisory Opinion OC-16/99, on the Right to Information on Consular Assistance within the Framework of Due Process of Law, of October 1, 1999, paras. 114-115, and concurring opinion of Judge A.A. Cançado Trindade, paras. 9-11; ICourtHR, the “Street Children” case (Villagrán Morales et al. v. Guatemala), judgment on merits of November 19, 1999, paras. 193-194; ICourtHR, Cantoral Benavides v. Peru, judgment on merits of August 18, 2000, paras. 99 and 102-103; ICourtHR, Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala, judgment on merits of November 25, 2000, Separate opinion of Judge A.A. Cançado Trindade, paras. 34-38; ICourtHR, the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community v. Nicaragua, judgment on merits and reparations of August 31, 2001, paras. 148-149; ICourtHR, Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala, judgment on reparations of February 22, 2002, separate opinion of Judge A.A. Cançado Trindade, para. 3. 38 Illustrated, with such emphasis, in its three historic and pioneering Advisory Opinions Nos. 16, 17 and 18, regarding, respectively, The Right to Information on Consular Assistance in the Framework of Due Process of Law (OC-16/99, of October 1, 1999, Series A, no. 16, paras. 32, 34, 36 and 42); Juridical Status and Human Rights of the Child (OC-17/02, of August 28, 2002, Series A, no. 17, paras. 20-22); and Juridical Status and Human Rights of Undocumented Migrants (OC-18/03, of September 17, 2003, Series A, no. 18, paras. 54 and 120). and also in its judgments in the “Street Children” case (Villagrán Morales et al. v. Guatemala), judgment of November 19, 1999, Series C, no. 63, paras. 192, 193 and 194; Cantoral Benavides v. Peru judgment of August 18, 2000, Series C, no. 69, paras. 98, 100 and 101; Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala, judgment of November 25, 2000, paras. 126, 157 and 209; the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers v. Peru, judgment of July 8, 2004, Series C, no. 110, paras. 165 and 166; the "Children’s Rehabilitation Institute” v. Paraguay, judgment of September 2, 2004, Series C, no. 112, para. 148; and Tibi v. Ecuador, judgment of September 7, 2004, Series C, no. 114, para. 144, among others.