5 immediate and absolute abolitionism. Although the conviction that capital punishment should be suppressed prevailed amongst the members of Congress, they always feared to abolish it, as the republic did not have any other substitute devise to rely on —they were just witnessing the beginnings of the penitentiary system. 18. Somehow as a compromise, the congressmen decided to adopt capital punishment and to entrust the Executive with creating a penitentiary system with a view to abolishing capital punishment as desired by all. Consequently, Article 23 of the newly-created Constitution was careful to state only that “[I]n order to abolish capital punishment, the administrative branch shall be responsible for creating the penitentiary system as soon as practicable.” Capital punishment was eventually abrogated from the Constitution in 2005 —one hundred and fifty years after the congress debate of 1857. It has always seemed regrettable to me to condition the implementation of necessary, warranted and accessible measures on the attainment of goals that are nearer or further in time, thus deferring fulfillment of certain duties that cannot be postponed. 19. This should not happen in cases of prisons the population of which —now desperately— awaits that the State will ensure protection of their most valuable rights, effective immediately. However, this is not only inmates’ expectations; it is the expectation of a greater part of —a now upset— society. How could anyone argue that a constitution must first be amended so that the obligation of the Federation will be in alignment with the duties inherent in its provinces, or that before all, certain principles of the accusatory procedure must be reviewed to encourage diligence in proceedings, or that before avoiding the entry of weapons to prisons, or reasonably classifying prison population or establishing order in prison life, a fiscal reform must first take place so as to generate greater resources with which to modernize prisons? 20. I am in favor of debates on constitutional guidelines of the Law and of criminal procedure. In fact, a major debate on this topic has been unleashed throughout Latin-America. Nonetheless, no debate however relevant or intense it may be, no deliberation however important and necessary it may be, nor measure for penitentiary changes —either in work places, education, segregation, health care, etc.— however indispensable they may be deemed, should halt not even for a second the adoption of serious and adequate measures to ensure life and integrity of inmates. If provisional measures have been ordered, the rationale behind this legal devise and the demands of a subverted reality, above all, call for these measures to be devoid of conditions or preambles, notwithstanding any refection or the immediate implementation of any other measure that could lead to a great-scale penitentiary reform. 21. This is why I should once again argue for the stance I took in Opinion on the provisional measures adopted by the Inter-American Court in connection with the Urso Branco prisons, Rondônia, Brazil, on July 7, 2004, which I restated in my Opinion on the measures for the Mendoza Prisons, on June 18, 2005: “Whether a penitentiary reform takes place, new legislation is passed on the topic, segregation of inmates is implemented, penitentiary institutions are modernized, officials in charge of custody and execution of sentences are carefully recruited, adequate substitutes for the imprisonment are provided for, obstacles are cleared for visitation of prisoners under dignifying conditions, medical assistance is available for the preservation of inmates’ health conditions, educational centers, workshops and units are established, all this, and even more, is absolutely indispensable, because it