3 II. Autonomous International Responsibility in cases of Provisional Measures of Protection under the American Convention 7. At present, in Latin-America and the Caribbean, there are almost twelve thousand persons (including members of entire communities) who are under the protection of provisional measures ordered by this Court.12 Provisional measures have expanded and gained considerable importance over the last decade, and have become a true jurisdictional guarantee of a preventive nature.13 And the InterAmerican Court, more than any other contemporary international tribunal, has significantly contributed to their development as part of both the International Law of Human Rights and contemporary Public International Law. 8. This being the case, I am but profoundly worried to notice that such a remarkable legal devise, that has saved many lives avoiding the occurrence of irreparable damage to persons —whose rights are protected under the American Convention on Human Rights— has started to prove insufficient on certain borderline cases. I am profoundly worried about the fact that over the last five years, as a direct consequence of the increasingly violent and dehumanized world we live in, some people who were under the protection of provisional measures ordered by this Court, have, however, been arbitrarily deprived of their lives.14 This requires a reaction on the part of the Law, with a view to protecting threatened and defenseless individuals. 9. Where this has been the case, there has been a clear-cut breach of Provisional Measures of Protection ordered by the Court, which have been conferred a true protective nature, rather than a precautionary one. Regardless of the merits of the referenced cases (the alleged or presumed original violations of the American Convention), violation therein has been committed to protective measure, of an 12 . Only in the Matter of the Pueblo Ingídena Kankuamo, provisional measures regarding Colombia, there are 6,000 beneficiaries of these measures; in the Matter of the Community of San José de Apartadó, provisional measure regarding Colombia, the number of beneficiaries is over 1,200; in the Matter of the Communities of Jiguamiandó and Curbaradó, provisional measures regarding Colombia, the number of beneficiaries exceed 2,000; in the Matter of Urso Branco, provisional measures regarding Brazil, almost 900 inmates are the beneficiaries of these measures; in the Matter of the Pueblo Indígena Sarayaku, provisional measures regarding Ecuador, the number of beneficiaries amount to approximately 1,200; among several other cases. 13 . For a study on this evolution, cf. A.A. Cançado Trindade, Tratado de Direito Internacional dos Direitos Humanos, vol. III, Porto Alegre/Brazil, S.A. Fabris Ed., 2003, pp. 80-83; A.A. Cançado Trindade, "Les Mesures provisoires de protection dans la jurisprudence de la Cour Interaméricaine des Droits de l'Homme", in Mesures conservatoires et droits fondamentaux (eds. G. Cohen Jonathan y J.-F. Flauss), Bruxelles, Bruylant/Nemesis, 2005, pp. 145-163; A.A. Cançado Trindade, "Les Mesures provisoires de protection dans la jurisprudence de la Cour Interaméricaine des Droits de l'Homme", 4 Revista do Instituto Brasileiro de Direitos Humanos (2003) pp. 13-25; A.A. Cançado Trindade, "The Evolution of Provisional Measures of Protection under the Case-Law of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (1987-2002)", 24 Human Rights Law Journal - Strasbourg/Kehl (2003), n. 5-8, pp. 162-168. 14 . This has taken place —paradoxically pari passu with the extraordinary expansion of Provisional Measures of Protection under the American Convention— not only in this present Matter of Mendoza Prisons, provisional measures regarding Argentina (2005-2006), but also, for example, in the Matter of the Community of San José de Apartadó, provisional measures regarding Colombia, in the matter of Eloisa Barrio et al., provisional measures regarding Venezuela (2005), in the Matter of Urso Branco Prison, provisional measure regarding Brazil (2004-2006), in the Matter of the Communities Jiguamiandó and Curbaradó, provisional measures regarding Colombia (2003-2006), in the Matter of the Children Deprived of Liberty in the ‘Complexo do Tatuapé’ of the FEBEM, provisional measures regarding Brazil (2005-2006), and in the Matter of James et al., provisional measures regarding Trinidad y Tobago (2000-2002).