3 Reservations to the Convention against Genocide 1, the present system of reservations set forth in the two Vienna Conventions of the Law of Treaties (Articles 19-23) 2, in joining the formulation of reservations to the acquiescence or the objetions thereto for the determination of their compatibility with the object and purpose of the treaties, is of a markedly voluntarist and contractualist character. 10. Such a system, as I pointed out in my Separate Opinion (paragraphs 16-19) in the Judgment on the merits in the present Blake case, leads to a fragmentation (in the bilateral relations) of the conventional obligations of the States Parties to multilateral treaties, appearing entirely inadequate to human rights treaties, which are inspired in superior common values and are applied in conformity with the notion of collective guarantee. That system of reservations, unfortunately endorsed by the American Convention on Human Rights itself (Article 75), suffers from notorious insufficiencies when transposed from the law of treaties into the domain of the International Law of Human Rights. 11. To start with, it does not distinguish between human rights treaties and classic treaties, making abstraction of the jurisprudence constante of the organs of international supervision of human rights, converging in pointing out that distinction. It allows reservations (not objected) of a wide scope which threaten the very integrity of human rights treaties; it allows reservations (not objected) to provisions of these treaties which incorporate universal minimum standards (undermining, e.g., the basic judicial guarantees of inviolable rights). If certain fundamental rights starting with the right to life - are non-derogable (in the terms of the human rights treaties themselves), thereby not admitting any derogations which, by definition, are of an essentially temporal or transitory character, - with greater reason one should not admit any reservations, perpetuated in time until withdrawn by the State at issue; such reservations are, in my understanding, without any caveat, incompatible with the object and purpose of those treaties. In this particular, I go, accordingly, beyond what was expressed in this respect by this Court in its third Advisory Opinion (paragraph 61) on Restrictions to the Death Penalty (1983) 3. 1. In which, - it may be recalled, - the Hague Court endorsed the so-called pan-American practice relating to reservations to treaties, given its flexibility, and in search of a certain balance between the integrity of the text of the treaty and the universality of participation in it; hence the criterion of the compatibility of the reservations with the object and purpose of the treaties. Cf. ICJ Reports (1951) pp. 15-30; and cf., a contrario sensu, the Joint Dissenting Opinion of Judges Guerrero, McNair, Read and Hsu Mo (pp. 31-48), as well as the Dissenting Opinion of Judge Álvarez (pp. 49-55), for the difficulties generated by this criterion. 2. That is, the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969, and the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties between States and International Organizations or between International Organizations of 1986, - to which one may add, in the same sense, the Vienna Convention on Succession of States in the Matter of Treaties of 1978 (Article 20). 3. In that Advisory Opinion, the Court considers a reservation which enables a State Party to suspend any of the fundamental non-derogable rights as incompatible with the object and purpose of the American Convention and not permitted by it, but curiously adds that "the situation would be different if the reservation sought merely to restrict certain aspects of a non-derogable right without depriving the right as a whole of its basic purpose" (paragraph 61). I see myself in the impossibility of following the reasoning of the Court's Advisory Opinion referred to in this last limitation: in my view, if a fundamental right does not admit any derogation, a fortiori it does not admit any restriction imposed by a reservation either.