9 persons under its jurisdiction and custody" (para. 16). Due diligence is an even greater obligation in regards to incarcerated persons, who are in an especially vulnerable situation, under State custody. 27. The European Court of Human Rights, in turn, asserted, in the Soering versus the United Kingdom case (Judgment of 07.07.1989), that the absolute prohibition of torture (even in times of war and other national emergencies) expresses one of the “fundamental values of [contemporary] democratic societies” (para. 88). More recently, in the Kalashnikov versus Russia case (Judgment of 15.07.2002), the European Court stated that Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights "enshrines one of the most fundamental values of democratic society. It prohibits in absolute terms torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, irrespective of the circumstances and the victim's behaviour" (para. 95). 28. In the Selmouni versus France case (Judgment of 28.07.1999), the European Court categorically reiterated that Article 3 of the European Convention "enshrines one of the most fundamental values of democratic societies. Even in the most difficult circumstances, such as the fight against terrorism and organized crime, the Convention prohibits in absolute terms torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Unlike most of the substantive clauses of the Convention and of Protocols ns. 1 and 4, Article 3 makes no provision for exceptions and no derogation from it is permissible under Article 15(2) even in the event of a public emergency threatening the life of the nation (...)" (para. 95). 29. In that same Judgment, the European Court expressed its understanding that "the increasingly high standard being required in the area of the protection of human rights and fundamental liberties correspondingly and inevitably requires greater firmness in assessing breaches of the fundamental values of democratic societies" (para. 101). In the cas d'espèce, in regards to France –as in the instant Judgment of the Inter-American Court that has found the respondent State responsible for the torture inflicted on the étranger Tibi (para. 165) – the European Court also found the respondent State responsible for the torture inflicted on étranger Selmouni (paras. 105-106). 30. The Ad Hoc International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia stated unequivocally, in the A. Furundzija case (Judgment of 10.12.1998), that the absolute prohibition of torture is a jus cogens rule (paras. 137-139, 144 and 160). Jurisprudence of various international tribunals is, thus, perfectly clear in stating the reaction of ratione materiae Law, regarding absolute prohibition of torture, in all its forms, under any and all circumstances –a prohibition that, in our days, falls under international jus cogens, with all its juridical consequences for the States responsible. 31. In my Concurring Opinion to Advisory Opinion n. 18 (of 17.09.2003) on La Condición Jurídica y los Derechos de los Migrantes Indocumentados, I stated my understanding that jus cogens is not a closed juridical category, but rather one that evolves and expands (paras. 65-73). In brief, “On my part, I have always asserted that an ineluctable consequence of the affirmation and the very existence of peremptory norms of International Law is their not being limited to the conventional norms, to the law of treaties, and their encompassing every