5. Even with that interpretation of the provision, my petitions are still valid regarding the fact that the creation of a simple and prompt recourse cannot be put aside in the development of the case -law of the Convention, which is, without any doubt, a description of the classic Latin-American writ of amparo, extremely useful for countless situations. I repeat what I have said on several occasions: the Court has used the idea of a simple and prompt recourse to examine the development of a criminal procedure, which is never simple nor prompt and has used the notion of a reasonable time as enshrined in Article 8 to evaluate the promptness of the recourse. I cannot agree with this idea. I neither agree with the idea of that, by unifying rights, the system is strengthened. The development of each right grants a greater range of possibilities to the individuals. 6. With regard to this case in particular, I believe that there were recourses, not the amparo, that were effective according to the definition of effectiveness provided by the Court. On the contrary, the proceeding that was initiated as a result of some of these resources had a delay that, in no way, can be considered reasonable and therefore, I agree with the opinion that there has been a violation of Article 8. Cecilia Medina Quiroga President Pablo Saavedra Alessandri Secretary