2 Tobago (2000-2002). This requires a reaction from Law in order to protect the vulnerable and defenseless. 4. In the matters cited above, there has been, therefore, a clear failure to comply with the Provisional Measures of Protection ordered by the Court, which are more than precautionary; they are truly protective. Notwithstanding the merits of the aforesaid cases (the alleged or reported original violations of the American Convention), there has been a violation of protective measures, essentially preventive in nature, which effectively safeguard fundamental rights, - almost always irrevocable rights, such as the right to life -, insofar as the seek to prevent irreparable damage to the human being as subject of International Human Rights Law and contemporary Public International Law. 5. This means - and this is the fundamental point that I would like to emphasize in this Concurring Opinion, as I have consistently done in past Opinions-, that, notwithstanding the merits of the respective cases, the concept of victim also emerges in the new context of the Provisional Measures of Protection. There is no escaping this point, which puzzles and concerns me. On the other hand, also in this context of prevention of irreparable damage to the human being, the central importance of the human person, though victimized, is affirmed.3 6. Provisional Measures of Protection impose obligations on the States, which are different from the obligations resulting from the Judgments rendered on the respective merits of the cases. There are actually obligations that result from Provisional Measures of Protection per se. They are completely different from the obligations that may be imposed by a Judgment on the merits (and reparations, if applicable) of the cas d'espèce. This means that Provisional Measures of Protection constitute an autonomous legal remedy; they actually have their own legal framework, which in turn, reveals the importance of the preventive dimension of the international protection of human rights. 7. So much so that, under the American Convention (Article 36(2)), the international liability of a State may arise from failure to comply with Provisional Measures of Protection ordered by the Court, even if the respective merits of the case are not pending before the Court (but rather before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights). This confirms my thesis, which I set myself to advance in this Concurring Opinion, that Provisional Measures of Protection, in light of their autonomy, have their own legal framework, and failure to comply with them results in liability of the State. It has legal consequences, in addition to underscoring the central role of the victim (of such non-compliance), notwithstanding the consideration and decision of the specific case at issue upon its merits. . Cf. A.A. Cançado Trindade, El Acceso Directo del Individuo a los Tribunales Internacionales de Derechos Humanos (Direct Access of Individuals to International Human Rights Courts), Bilbao, Universidad de Deusto, 2001, pp. 9-104. 3

Select target paragraph3