SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE A.A. CANÇADO TRINDADE 1. On this day, September 26, 2006, I have voted for the adoption of this Order of Provisional Measures by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, in the Matter of Gloria Giralt de García-Prieto et al., regarding El Salvador and, as did in the recent Order of the Court in a prior matter, Mery Naranjo et al., regarding Colombia (of September 9, 2006), I feel obliged to add this Separate Opinion including my brief thoughts on some issues I am concerned for and that, during the last months, I have been expressing to the Court, in order to strengthen this preventive mechanism for rights protection. I am especially referring to some problems that have arisen under the American Convention, and which have derived from the co-existence of the provisional measures issued by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, and those ordered by the Inter-American Court, in the light of the mandatory principle of the direct access of individuals to international jurisdiction. Below, I include, though under the cruel pressure of time, my brief opinions on this matter, both of lex lata and of lege ferenda. I. Brief reflections on Lex Lata 2. In this matter of Gloria Giralt de García-Prieto et al., on June 20, 1997, the Inter-American Commission ordered its first provisional measures for the benefit of some next of kin of Ramón Mauricio García-Prieto-Giralt, their legal counselors from the Instituto de Derechos Humanos de la Universidad Centroamericana (Institute of Human Rights of the Central American University) (hereinafter, “IDHUCA”, for its acronym in Spanish) and the witnesses involved in the investigation of his death, and said measures were reiterated to the State on November 11, 2001. The Commission itself pointed out that, during the effectiveness of said provisional measures, José Mauricio García-Prieto and Gloria Giralt de García-Prieto, as well as their legal counselors, had received several threats of death. 3. In its recent request for Provisional Measures filed with the Court (yesterday, September 25, 2006), the Commission stated, as regards the implementation of the provisional measures, that “in effect, the protection granted is not adequate enough to effectively protect the life and personal integrity” of the beneficiaries (para. 39). Now, almost a decade after the order for provisional measures issued in the cas d'espèce, the Commission files with the Court a request for Provisional Measures for the Protection of the abovementioned persons. 4. The inadequate or unsatisfactory protection admitted by the Commission, which prompted it to request the Court the issuance of Provisional Measures of Protection in the instant case, has already occurred in several other cases, where the Commission insisted on ordering its provisional measures and only then, and due to the vulnerability of the potential victims, in extreme situations, did it request the Provisional Measures to the Court. A typical example of this situation can be found in the cases related to Trinidad y Tobago, on the death penalty (e.g., case James et al.), among several others. 5. In recent meetings held jointly by the Court and the Inter-American Commission, as well as in several public hearings held before this Court, and even during the Court´s deliberations, I have expressed my deep concern for this practice and pointed out that, in certain cases, it is better to send the requests for Provisional