DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE EDUARDO VIO GROSSI PROVISIONAL MEASURES REGARDING THE UNITED MEXICAN STATES CASE OF ROSENDO CANTÚ ET AL. The present dissenting opinion concerns the aforementioned order, in view of the fact that by issuing the judgment on merits in proceedings, a preclusion took effect regarding the authority of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, hereinafter "the Court," to enact new provisional measures in the case, having ceased, furthermore, the previously ordered measures, however, its object and effects were undertaken in the aforementioned judgment. Introduction The conventional rule applicable in the present case is Article 63(2) of the American Convention on Human Rights, hereinafter "the Convention," which states: "[i]n cases of extreme gravity and urgency, and when necessary to avoid irreparable damage to persons, the Court shall adopt such provisional measures as it deems pertinent in matters it has under consideration. With respect to a case not yet submitted to the Court, it may act at the request of the Commission." Considering jurisprudence is the "subsidiary means for the determination of rules of law,"1 it is thus the responsibility of the Court to define the meaning and scope of the provisions provided for in the above treaty rule, i.e., to interpret it "in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of its object and purpose,"2 and, therefore, seeking the will of the States that created it, all considering, furthermore, that the greatest guarantee of protection that the Court should grant in accordance with its role in delivering justice in human rights is the unconditional respect for the rules that govern it. I. - Provisional measures and a contentious case. In this perspective, it states that the cited rule must be understood in the sense that the Court can only order provisional measures in matters it has under its consideration or regarding issues for which the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, hereinafter "the Commission," requested such measures, even if they have not been brought before the Court. In other words, in the first eventuality, as part of the contentious cases proceedings, and, in the second, concerning matters likely to become contentious cases. Basically, it affirms that these measures are ordered under the contentious jurisdiction of the Court.3 It should also be noted, for this purpose, that, within the 1 Article 38(1)(d) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice. 2 Article 31(1) of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. 3 The Court has contentious jurisdiction and non-contentious or advisory jurisdiction. The former is set forth in Articles 61, 62 and 63 of the Convention. The latter is provided for in Article 64 thereof. As

Select target paragraph3