16 European Convention, to the detriment of their deceased husband and father 41. More recently, in its decision on the admissibility of the Andronicou and Constantinou versus Cyprus case (1995), the European Commission relied upon its own jurisprudence constante to the effect that the parents of a person whose death engages the responsibility of the respondent State can claim to be victims of a violation of the European Convention, the same occurring with the brothers and sisters of the deceased person in case that person was unmarried 42. 44. At global level (United Nations), several decisions of the Human Rights Committee (under the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of the United Nations) have oriented themselves in the same sense. It may be recalled, for example, the position adopted in the matter by the Committee in two cases pertaining to Uruguay, namely: in the García Lanza de Netto case (1980), the Committee accepted that the initial author of the petition, by virtue of "close family connection", acted on behalf of the alleged victims, her uncle and aunt (who had been detained and were unable to act on their own behalf) 43; and in the Valentini de Bazzano case (1979) the Committed understood in the same way that the author of the petition "was justified by reason of close family connection in acting on behalf of the other alleged victims" 44. Thus, the present Blake versus Guatemala case, in the inter-American system of protection of human rights, makes no exception to this significant doctrinal and jurisprudential evolution as to the notion of victim under human rights treaties. 45. Which are, at last, the lessons that we can extract from the present Blake case before the Inter-American Court? Essentially ten, in my understanding, which I allow myself to summarize in conclusion: - First, in accepting optional clauses of recognition of the contentious jurisdiction of conventional organs of protection, States Parties to human rights treaties ought to bear always in mind the objective character of the obligations of protection enshrined in such treaties, as well as the element of intemporality inherent in the protection of human rights; 41. European Commission of Human Rights, application n. 5961/72, decision of admissibility of 11.10.1973, pp. 1-14, pars. 1-30, cf. especially par.26 (mimeographed, internal circulation); and cf., for the friendly settlement of the case, European Commission of Human Rights, Amekrane versus United Kingdom case, Report of the Commission (of 19.07.1974), pp. 1-5. 42. Application n. 25052/94, Andronicou and Constantinou versus Cyprus case, decision of admissibility of 05.07.1995, in: Commission Européenne des Droits de l'Homme, Décisions et Rapports, vol. 82-B, Strasbourg, C.E., 1995, p. 112; and the Commission added that the conditions governing applications under Article 25 of the European Convention do not necessarily coincide with the national criteria concerning locus standi, as the legal norms of domestic law on the matter can serve ends different from those of Article 25 of the Convention (autonomy of the notion of victim). 43. Communication n. 8/1977, in: International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Human Rights Committee - Selected Decisions under the Optional Protocol, [vol. I], N.Y., U.N., 1985, pp. 45-46. 44. Communication n. 5/1977, in ibid., pp. 41 and 43; moreover, communication n. 63/1979, concerning Uruguay, decided by the Committee in 1981, was submitted by Violeta Setelich, on behalf of her husband Raúl Sendic Antonaccio (in ibid., pp. 102 and 104).