4 14. The solution to the problems arising from life in prison —life against nature, full of paradoxes and threatened by the demolishing criticism of new currents on social control— is neither easy nor immediate as a matter of course; this solution calls for the concurrence of several instruments —as varied as legal and financial resources— gathered and administered by a strong will. At the hearing held in Brasilia on the Mendoza Prisons, an inquiry was made on the means to solve —once and for all— the problem affecting these confinement centers. What is said about them may be said about many others, in either central or federal countries: energetic, coordinated, immediate and sustained action. Quick-fix actions will never suffice. Absence of coordination —which cannot be justified in any case, not even under federal organizational schemes, as governments have constitutional and institutional means to establish common fronts in this field, as in others— puts many obstacles on the way and leaves big empty spaces which are filled with violence. The deferral of measures and a recess in progress lead to dreadful results: multiplication of violations. 15. At the hearing held a year ago in the city of Asunción, the participants signed a productive agreement. Certainly, the rights accruing to some and the duties imposed on the others do not arise from that agreement, executed in good faith, at the initiative of the Inter-American Court. Those rights and duties arise from domestic constitutional law and provisions of international law on human rights, which have been made part of the Order of the Court on provisional measures, and which cannot be waived by agreement between the parties. However, I deem it pertinent —on a personal note— to highlight the importance of this agreement as it showed the positive juridical willingness and encouraged communication between those with colliding interests. Mutual understanding contributes to the efficacy of the law, it achieves more, much more on certain occasions, than the solemn directive of a rule or judicial judgment. Therefore, I would like to revive the spirit of that agreement, its moral and juridical component, its intrinsic value. Keeping it will contribute to resolving the conflict, disregarding it will not be a contribution whatsoever. I believe we should continue building new stages of this solution on the foundations still given by commitment and good will. 16. At the hearing held in Brasilia, which led to the order of the provisional measures to which I attach this Opinion, reference was made to the need of examining and implementing measures of different nature, some of them being highly complex and obviously relevant, calling for constitutional reforms, review of the structure of procedures, and considerable expenditure. Of course, I do not deny the convenience of analyzing everything worth being analyzed and reforming everything that needs reforming in order to improve administration of justice and execution of judicial decisions. May that be done. However, I insist on the need to distinguish between what can be postponed —as part of conscientious actions, that is— and what cannot be delayed. Withdrawing attention from critical problems until structural questions and other great-scale issues are solved would mean jeopardizing the immediate protection of valuable rights —that is, inmates’ life and integrity. 17. During the hearing held in Brasilia, I allowed myself to resort to certain old experiences that criminal institutions in my country, Mexico, had been through. When the Federal Constitution was discussed back and forth, between 1856 and 1857, at a constitutional assembly, the representatives had to deal with the issue of punishment, in a panorama of crime and public security, which was certainly serious in those years of the XIX century. During the debate, the supporters of capital punishment crashed —energetically, I must admit— against the proclaimers of