13 that should be ensured in the processing of “petitions or communications lodged” before the Commission and submitted to the consideration of the Court. Consequently, it is in this sense that I agree with what the Court itself has stated, as regards “the tolerance of ‘evident infringements of the procedural rules established in the Convention [and I would add of the Rules of Procedure of the Court and of the Commission], results in the loss of the essential authority and credibility of the organs responsible for administering the system of human rights protection.”45 And this is because it is precisely these rules that ensure the legal certainty and equality of treatment of those who appear before the Court, as well as the Court’s own impartiality and independence when imparting justice in the area of human rights. Evidently, this opinion is issued, as in the case of other opinions issued by the undersigned,46 based on one of the particular imperatives that a tribunal such as the Court has to take into consideration, which is that it must act with full awareness that, as an autonomous and independent entity, it has no superior authority controlling it, which means that, in honor of the extremely important functions assigned to it, it must strictly respect the limits to its functions, and remain and act within the specific sphere of a jurisdictional entity. Clearly, acting in this way is the best contribution that the Court can make to the consolidation of the inter-American institutional framework for human rights, a requirement sine qua non for the due safeguard of those rights and, to this end, the Commission has the responsibility to promote and defend them, 47 the Court is responsible for interpreting and applying the Convention in the cases submitted to its consideration,48 and the States are responsible for amending the Convention if they find this necessary.49 45 Case of Díaz Peña v. Venezuela, Judgment of June 26, 2012 (Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs, para. 43. 46 Record of complaint submitted to the Court on August 17, 2011, and Dissenting opinion, Case of Barbani Duarte et al. v. Uruguay, Judgment on merits, reparations and costs of October 13, 2011. 47 First sentence of Art. 41of the Convention: “The main function of the Commission shall be to promote respect for and defense of human rights. …”. 48 Art. 62(3) of the Convention: “The jurisdiction of the Court shall comprise all cases concerning the interpretation and application of the provisions of this Convention that are submitted to it, provided that the States Parties to the case recognize or have recognized such jurisdiction, whether by special declaration pursuant to the preceding paragraphs, or by a special agreement..” 49 Art. 76 of the Convention: “1. Proposals to amend this Convention may be submitted to the General Assembly for the action it deems appropriate by any State Party directly, and by the Commission or the Court through the Secretary General. 2. Amendments shall enter into force for the States ratifying them on the date when two-thirds of the States Parties to this Convention have deposited their respective instruments of ratification. With respect to the other States Parties, the amendments shall enter into force on the dates on which they deposit their respective instruments of ratification.” Art. 39 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties: “General rule regarding the amendment of treaties. A treaty may be amended by agreement between the parties. The rules laid down in Part II apply to such an agreement except in so far as the treaty may otherwise provide.”