2 8. By evidence, I naturally mean means of conviction - I deliberately use this word: conviction – sufficient to persuade the judge passing a judgment of conviction: “sufficient evidence.” I am not talking about a criminal conviction; just conviction that is explained by the – “convincing” – verification of certain unlawful facts, which are the result of the – also verified – actions of a given agent. Obviously enough, I do not expect all the facts at issue in a case to be established through official, unquestionable documents and univocal and reliable testimony, or irrefutable expert opinions. Doing so would be childish. I accept the possibility and efficacy of indirect means of evidence, provided, however, that they overcome the – often imprecise and elusive – line separating sufficient evidence from those data which, by themselves, do not possess this essential quality. 9. Naturally, conviction is a strictly personal matter. I acknowledge the fact that each person may arrive at their own conclusions with full intellectual probity and a completely clean conscience, and that these deserve as much respect and consideration as is afforded to contrary conclusions. A difference of opinion does not entail reproach, as noted in all of my separate opinions. Other than that, I have already said that I agree that there was a violation of Articles 4 and 1(1) of the Convention. The insufficiency of the evidence concerning a given point in the alleged facts is precisely that: insufficiency. It is not - not even by a long shot – a clearing of the allegations. It has not been so in the instant case. PRESERVATION OF THE ENVIRONMENT 10. The Inter-American Court has categorically and constantly highlighted the special duty of the State when it comes to human rights defenders. Such persons are, just like the State itself – and so I have repeatedly noted – central players in the Inter-American Human Rights Systems, the operation of which is largely dependent on the progress made in such protection in the countries of the Americas and the expansion of the human rights culture. 11. I must further note that the violation of the duty of guarantee in this case – in which the right to life was violated – runs counter to the general protection of those who devote their life and work to the preservation of the environment, a service that reaches well beyond the individual right of one or a few persons: it concerns and affects us all. Such devotion has now become evident, since the victim was a recognized environmentalist who had faced opposition and adversity because of her being such. 12. Any actions and omissions that directly affect those who act in this context also intimidate others who are engaged in similar activities. Therefore, they create individual and social discouragement, causing serious damage to the community as a whole. The position of the Court on this subject is, moreover, in line with the repeated requirement that special protection be provided to persons engaged in the defense of human rights. Preservation of the environment, the integrity of which is a right of all, gravitates in that direction and calls for protection. REASONABLE TIME 13. On the other hand, I would like to address the repetition, in this Judgment, of something which has meant a step forward in the Inter-American Court’s case law. I am talking about the inclusion (as seen in paragraph 112) of a piece of information for the