15 Calderón v. Equador (Judgment of June 24, 2005, para. 7 of the Opinion), Yatama v. Nicaragua (Judgment of June 23, 2005, paras. 6-8 of the Opinion), Comunidade Moiwana v. Suriname (Judgment of June 15, 2005, para. 30 of the Opinion), Caesar v. Trinidad e Tobago (Judgment of March 11, 2005, paras. 85-92 of the Opinion), Massacre de Plan de Sánchez v. Guatemala (merits, Judgment of April, 2004, paras. 29-33 of the Opinion; and reparations, Judgment of November 19, 2004, para. 5-6 of the Opinion), Tibi v. Equador (Judgment of September 7, 2004, paras. 26-35 of the Opinion), Irmãos Gómez Paquiyauri v. Peru (Judgment of July 8, 2004, paras. 37-44 of the Opinion), Myrna Mack Chang v. Guatemala (Judgment of November 25, 2003, para. 29 of the Opinion), Hilaire, Constantine e Benjamin e Outros v. Trinidad e Tobago (preliminary objections, Judgment of September 1, 2001, para. 38 of the Opinions; and merit, Judgment of June 21, 2002, para. 16 of the Opinion), Trujillo Oroza v. Bolívia (Judgment of February 27, 2002, para. 18 of the Opinion), "Meninos de Rua" (Villagrán Morales e Outros) v. Guatemala (reparations, Judgment of May 26, 2001, para. 36 of the Opinion), Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala (Judgment of November 25, 2000, para. 27 of the Opinion), Las Palmeras v. Colômbia (preliminary objections, Judgment of February 4, 2000, para. 6 of the Opinion); and Blake v. Guatemala (preliminary objections, Judgment of July 2, 1996, paras. 11 and 14 of the Opinion; and merit, Judgment of January 24, 1998, paras. 23-30 of the Opinion; and reparations, Judgment of January 22, 1999, para. 39-42 of the Opinion); and, apart from that, as corroborated in my Concurring Opinions in the cases Maritza Urrutia v. Guatemala (Judgment of November 27, 2003, paras. 5-10 of the Opinion), Barrios Altos v. Peru (Judgment of March 14, 2001, para. 11 of the Opinion), and by my Dissenting Opinion in the case of Irmãs Serrano Cruz v. El Salvador (preliminary objections, Judgment of November 23, 2004, paras. 32 and 39-43), plus many other Opinions by myself in precautionary protection ordered by this Court. 38 46. Therefore, I believe that the Court could and should have taken the arguments of its most advanced jurisprudence for the matter at issue when analyzing this Judgment in the case of Ximenes-Lopes. Perhaps it would have done so had it given itself more time for discussion. As stated by the renown adage, you cannot rush perfection. Moreover, until the beginning of 2004, the Inter-American Court was one of the contemporary international Courts which mostly contributed to the evolution of the material content of the jus cogens, followed by the Criminal International Court ad hoc for former Yugoslavia. For any reason which escapes my understanding, lately it seems to have refrained its doctrinal and jurisprudential construction on the matter. 47. To my belief, in this Judgment in the case of Ximenes-Lopes, when determining the violations not only of Articles 4 and 5 of the Convention (acknowledged by the State itself), but also of Articles 8(1) and 25 of the Convention, it should have gone beyond regarding the latter, broadening the jus cogens scope also to the right of access to justice lato sensu, including the . Cases of Crianças e Adolescentes Privados de Liberdade no Complexo do Tatuapé da FEBEM v. Brasil (of November 30, 2005, paras. 24-26 of my Concurring Opinion); Prisões de Mendoza v. Argentina (of June 18, 2005, paras. 7-20 of my Concurring Opinion); Povo Indígena de Sarayaku v. Equador (of July 6, 2004, para. 8 of my Concurring Opinion; and of June 17, 2005, paras. 20-26 of my Concurring Opinion); Comunidades do Jiguamiandó e do Curbaradó v. Colômbia (of March 15, 2005, paras. 8-10 of my Concurring Opinion); Comunidade de Paz de San José de Apartadó v. Colômbia (of March 15, 2005, paras. 8-10 of my Concurring Opinion); Emissora de Televisão `Globovisión' vs. Venezuela (of September 4, para. 13 of my Concurring Opinion); Prisão de Urso Branco vs. Brasil (of July 7, 2004, para. 8 of my Concurring Opinion); and Povo Indígena Kankuamo v. Colômbia (of July 5, 2004, para. 10 of my Concurring Opinion). 38