the competence of the judge to decide on the importance or lack of importance, on the justice or injustice of a fact without taking his instructions from the litigants. 35. Calamandrei, when examining the provision concerning the formal assumption in the remedy of cassation of the right to demand an indication of the legal principle on which the appeal is founded 13 was thoughtful when he admitted: 14 “[...] the indication that may also be lacking when the violated norms are equally identifiable, given the description of the charges or when the violation refers to general principles that have not been formulated in an article.” 36. Long ago, the universal human rights system established the right to a simple judicial proceeding to protect the individual from complicated proceedings and appeals, complex for public defenders and lawyers, understood with difficult by the ordinary jurisdictional person, for the individual who rarely brings a case to trial, all in the interest of the guarantee of access to justice and an effective remedy (or proceeding). 37. It is also evident that the law can establish supposedly general remedies, but excessive rigor restricting their observance, in addition to those restrictions expressed by law will always act against due access to justice, especially because the less privileged layers of society, which undoubtedly have greater difficulty in hiring the best lawyers who dominate the complex and increasingly specialized procedural techniques, will find themselves at a considerable disadvantage. This real inequality becomes a concrete impediment to access to justice and the simplicity of the remedy. 38. In turn, in the 1948 American Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man, the interAmerican regional system included a very clear text on the right to a simple, brief procedure. 15 39. Likewise, in the case of the American Convention on Human Rights (Pact of San José, Costa Rica), its Article 25 16 would be violated if the arguments were not accepted on the basis of the reason alleged by the State. 40. Consequently, the Commission’s reference to Article 28 of the American Convention (Federal Clause) should be accepted for reasons other than those already cited by the Court, which are the iura novit curia principle and its consequent da mihi factum dabo tibi jus, and also in observance of the obligation in the provision of the Convention cited above (Article 25 – judicial protection or, more specifically, right to a simple and prompt procedure). 41. Finally, condemning the State for violating Article 28 of the American Convention (Federal Clause), which the Court finally accepts, should not be seen as linked to a more severe punishment. To the contrary, in the instant case, despite Brazil’s tenacity in defending its position, its understanding and respect for the victims’ position was clear to see; and this was not observed in its federal unit, Paraná, as was evident during the proceedings before the Commission, especially owing to the communication difficulties between the federal and state spheres. In fact, the recognition of the violation of Article 28 helped to define the domestic responsibilities for the violations. 13 CPC, Art. 366. (Contenuto del ricorso) Il ricorso deve contenere, a pena di inammissibilita: (…) 4) i motivi per i quali si chiede la cassazione, con l'indicazione delle norme di diritto su cui si fondano; [text prior to the 2006 reform]. 14 CALAMANDREI, Piero. Casación Civil. Translation by Santiago Sentís Melendo and Marino Ayerra Redín. Buenos Aires: EJEA, 1959, p. 119. 15 Article XVIII - Every person may resort to the courts to ensure respect for his legal rights. There should likewise be available to him a simple, brief procedure whereby the courts will protect him from acts of authority that, to his prejudice, violate any fundamental constitutional rights. 16 Art. 25. Right to Judicial Protection. Everyone has the right to simple and prompt recourse, or any other effective recourse, to a competent court or tribunal for protection against acts that violate his fundamental rights recognized by the constitution or laws of the state concerned or by this Convention, even though such violation may have been committed by persons acting in the course of their official duties.