6 documentation to the Court and during the presentation of their oral arguments. This allowed the Court to fulfill its duty of effective response by the judicial system within a reasonable time under the American Convention,- in contrast with the events occurred in the scope of domestic law, - which stresses the relevance of international jurisdiction. 18. Regarding the correct ruling by this Court of the preliminary objection filed by the Respondent Government, there is no need to entirely repeat my concurring opinion in the former Judgment of November 30, 2005 in this case of XimenesLopes, but only the last paragraph, where, regarding to the need of a greater degree of reflection on the improvement of the proceedings under the American Convention and a clearer explanation of the role of the Commission under the Convention, I stated: "My opinion regarding this matter is very clear, and it is recorded in the Protocol Project for the Human Rights American Convention (Projeto de Protocolo à Convenção Americana sobre Direitos Humanos) where I submitted, in the name of the Inter-American Court, before the competent bodies of the Organization of American States (OAS) in 200116, which sets forth the human being right to international justice, to the automatically compulsory jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court, to the jurisdictionalization of the Inter-American system of protection and to the retention, within the scope of the latter and at present, of the role of district attorney by the InterAmerican Convention” (para. 3). III. The Right Of Access To Justice Lato Sensu In The Inevitable Dissociability Between Articles 25 And 8 Of The American Convention 19. Next, I will refer to one of the central issues analyzed by the Court in this Judgment in the case of Ximenes-Lopes (and treated in its jurisprudence constante, and in several Opinions that I have rendered in adversarial cases submitted before this Court), that is, the access to justice lato sensu, based on the inevitable dissociability - which I have supported for years in this Court - between Articles 25 and 8 of the American Convention. With regard to that issue, in my recent and long Separate Opinion in the case of Massacre of Pueblo Bello v. Colombia (Judgment of January 31, 2006) I referred, in a logic sequence, to the broad scope of the general duty of guarantee (Article 1(1) of the American Convention) and to the erga omnes protection duty (paras. 2-13), to the genesis, ontology and hermeneutics of Articles 25 and 8 of the American Convention (paras. 14-21), to the irrelevance of allegation of domestic law difficulties (paras. 22-23), to the right to an effective remedy in the jurisprudential construction of the Inter-American Court (paras. 24-27); then I examined the inevitable dissociability between access to justice (right to an effective remedy) and the guarantees of due legal process (Articles 25 and 8 of the American Convention) (paras. 28-34), and came to the conclusion that such impossibility of dissociation, consecrated in the Court’s jurisprudence constante to date (paras. 3543), constitutes “a legal heritage of the Inter-American system of protection and of the people of our region," reason for which “I firmly oppose to any attempt to deconstruct it" (para. 33). . A.A. Cançado Trindade, Bases para un Proyecto de Protocolo a la Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos, para Fortalecer Su Mecanismo de Protección, vol. II, 2nd. ed., San José de Costa Rica, Inter-American Court of Human Rights, 2003, pp. 1-1015. 16