3 enshrined therein, the autonomous meaning (in relation to the domestic law of the States) of the terms of such treaties, the collective guarantee underlying them, the wide scope of the obligations of protection and the restrictive interpretation of permissible restrictions. These elements converge in sustaining the integrity of human rights treaties, in seeking the fulfilment of their object and purpose, and, accordingly, in establishing limits to State voluntarism. From all this one can detect a new vision of the relations between public power and the human being, which is summed up, ultimately, in the recognition that the State exists for the human being, and not vice-versa" 5. 9. Another aspect to be here recalled is that of the autonomous meaning of the terms of human rights treaties (as distinct from their meaning, e.g., in domestic law). The point, stressed by the Human Rights Committee (under the U.N. Covenant on Civil and Political Rights) in the adoption of its views in the Van Duzen versus Canada case (in 1982), has also been taken up by the two regional - European and InterAmerican - Courts of Human Rights. The European Court has endorsed the doctrine of autonomous interpretation in its judgments, for example, in the Ringeisen (1971), König (1978) and Le Compte (1981 and 1983) cases. The Inter-American Court, in its turn, in its sixth Advisory Opinion, on The Word "Laws" in Article 30 of the American Convention on Human Rights (1986), clarified that the word "laws" in Article 30 of the American Convention, to be examined in accordance not only with the principle of legality but also with that of legitimacy, means a juridical norm of a general character, turned to the "general welfare", emanated from the legislative organs constitutionally foreseen and democratically elected, and elaborated according to the procedure for law-making established by the Constitutions of States Parties. 10. Moreover, the dynamic or evolutive interpretation of the respective human rights Conventions (the intertemporal dimension) has been followed by both the European Court 6 and the Inter-American Court7, so as to fulfil the changing needs of protection of the human being; in its sixteenth and pioneering Advisory Opinion, on The Right to Information on Consular Assistance in the Framework of the Guarantees of the Due Process of Law (1999), which has inspired the international case-law in statu nascendi on the matter, the Inter-American Court has clarified that, in its interpretation of the norms of the American Convention, it should extend protection in new situations (such as that concerning the observance of the right to information on consular assistance) on the basis of pre-existing rights. The same vision has been propounded by the Inter-American Court in its subsequent forward-looking eighteenth Advisory Opinion, on the Juridical Condition and Rights of Undocumented Migrants (2003). 5 . IACtHR, Blake versus Guatemala case (Reparations), Judgment of 22.01.1999, Series C, n. 48, Separate Opinion of Judge A.A. Cançado Trindade, pp. 52-53, par. 33, and cf. pars. 32-34. 6 . E.g., cases Tyrer versus United Kingdom (1978), Airey versus Ireland (1979), Marckx versus Belgium (1979), Dudgeon versus United Kingdom (1981), among others. 7 . Cf., in this sense, the obiter dicta in: Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR), Advisory Opinion OC-10/89, on the Interpretation of the American Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man in the Framework of Article 64 of the American Convention on Human Rights, of 14.07.1989, pars. 37-38; IACtHR, Advisory Opinion OC-16/99, on the Right to Information on Consular Assistance in the Framework of the Guarantees of the Due Process of Law, of 01.10.1999, pars. 114-115, and Concurring Opinion of Judge A.A. Cançado Trindade, pars. 9-11; IACtHR, case of the "Street Children" (Villagrán Morales and Others versus Guatemala), Judgment (on the merits) of 19.11.1999, pars. 193-194; IACtHR, case Cantoral Benavides versus Peru, Judgment (on the merits) of 18.08.2000, pars. 99 and 102-103; IACtHR, case Bámaca Velásquez versus Guatemala, Judgment (on the merits) of 25.11.2000, Individual Opinion of Judge A.A. Cançado Trindade, pars. 34-38; IACtHR, case of the Community Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni versus Nicaragua, Judgment (on the merits and reparations) of 31.08.2001, pars. 148-149; IACtHR, case Bámaca Velásquez versus Guatemala, Judgment (on reparations) of 22.02.2002, Individual Opinion of Judge A.A. Cançado Trindade, par. 3.