acts, but also due respect to both the majority and the minority within it when deciding the corresponding case. Concurring and dissenting opinions are part of the essence of a collegiate court, where the opinions of all its members contribute to enhancing the decisions and the search for justice, in this case, in the domain of human rights. This opinion is emitted considering, also, one of the characteristic imperatives of a tribunal such as the Court, which is that of adapting its conduct to the provisions of law, without, as an autonomous and independent entity, a superior authority that controls it. This means that it is the Court itself that, in deference to the vital function assigned to it, strictly respects the limits of this function and remains and evolves in the sphere inherent to a jurisdictional entity. Without doubt, this contributes to strengthening the institutional framework of inter-American human rights, a sine qua non requirement for their proper safeguard. Eduardo Vio Grossi Judge Pablo Saavedra Alessandri Secretary Mexican States, Case of Rosendo Cantú et al. v. Mexico”, of July 1, 2011 and “Provisional measures with regard to the Republic of Honduras, Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras”, of July 5, 2011. 19