3 the proceeding. In a sense –to use an expression evoked in evidentiary matters –the “fruits of a poisonous tree.” 11. This is what the Court has manifested in the judgment of Usón Ramírez, a decision which is similar –but not identical –to other cases which have been held similarly. It was different in the case of Castillo Petruzzi, a decade prior, wherein the Inter-American Court indicated that the tribunal which saw the case lacked subject-matter and personal jurisdiction, as well as independence and impartiality, and that it subsequently analyzed the facts constituting diverse violations to the guarantees recognized in Article 8(2). The detailed test of the characteristics encompassing each violation had significant relevance in the period in which the Tribunal was formulating extensive legal doctrine regarding due process in criminal matters. 12. I would like to emphasize that the opinion I am expressing in concurrences with the criterion adopted by the Inter-American Court in the case of Usón Ramírez, does not in the most minimum –I highlight with emphasis –that the Tribunal cannot or should not review, apart from the failure of a competent judge, the acts of violation that may have concurred with the case and analyzed the factors which accredit their incompatibility with the procedural obligations specified in Article 8(2). 13. It is perfectly possible, and most assuredly desirable in most cases, or perhaps in all cases, that the Tribunal indicate the violations committed and reiterate the interpretation of the terms encompassed in Article 8(2). It is in this sense that this jurisdiction acts, attending to its protective nature its jurisdictional mission, when it admits---or better yet, favors, with all the reason, as we have seen in many occasions—an ample exposition of facts and legal considerations, which inform the said judgment, including the cases wherein the State recognizes its responsibility, namely, when the confession of the facts and the admission of the claims concur---a situation which can be identified as a “search.” In other procedural orders, this recognition would evince a conclusory process, and without more, a stay of proceedings. Fortunately, the new Inter-American Court Rules of Procedure have changed the regulation of these procedural acts and modified concepts which should have been suppressed. Sergio García Ramírez Judge Pablo Saavedra Alessandri Secretary