2 the case was not yet proceeding before the Court but was being heard by the Commission. On November 8, 2006, the Commission had denied a request for provisional measures by the MOSAP and, to date, it has not requested this Court to order any provisional measures in the case of the Movimento dos Servidores Públicos Aposentados e Pensionistas. 5. Since chronological time is not equal to biological time, the situation strikes me as revealing extreme gravity and urgency, given the old age of many pensioners, which is reflected by the fact that, ever since the MOSAP's request was received by the Commission on August 30, 2006,12 sixty-three of them have died and eighteen others have contracted diseases that bring on incapacities. Similar situations in the most varied contexts and circumstances have been raised in prior sessions of this Court.13 In all of these cases I have stated my concern about and dissatisfaction with the state of defenselessness in which the persons who seek protection are left, and in this Separate Opinion of this session period of the Court I reaffirm them, in view of the ironic situation I have just described. 6. Both in joint meetings between the Inter-American Court and the Commission and in several public hearings held by this Court, and in the Court’s deliberations, I have taken the opportunity to express my deep concern about the Commission’s refusal to request the Court to order Provisional Protection Measures as sought by the potential beneficiaries. The situation becomes even more serious with the Commission denying the petitioners provisional measures without sufficient grounds, and the applicants unable to apply to the Court because their cases are being heard by the Commission rather than the Court. 7. It is my view that in cases like this there might be a denial of the right to access to international justice. Therefore, I will state in this Separate Opinion, my position as regards this issue, now that the last hours of my appointment as Judge of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights are approaching (tempus fugit). I will do so with a view to improving such an important preventive protection mechanism which is enshrined in the American Convention, and affirming my confidence in the common sense of my colleagues both from the Inter-American Court and the Inter-American Commission. 8. Firstly, in my opinion, the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies does not apply to requests for Provisional Protection Measures to the Court; on the contrary, such requirement is a condition for admissibility of petitions to the Commission as regards the merits of the specific case and any applicable reparations. In addition, cases involving Provisional Protection Measures are processed under the fast track procedure, in accordance with their preventive and protective nature, and to avoid prejudice of the merits of the case. 9. Secondly, in my opinion, there is no requirement for exhaustion of provisional measures from the Commission before filing a request for Provisional Protection Measures with the Inter-American Court. I have expressly stated thus in my Separate Concurring Opinion in a recent Order of the Court regarding Provisional Protection 11 Under Article 63(2) of the American Convention and Article 25(2) of the Rules of Procedure. 12 And a new petition was filed with the Commission on October 26, 2006. 13 Cf. note (9), infra. . . .