5 that it is unjust."13 Indeed, it is more comfortable, but also entirely senseless. Therefore, the inevitability of suffering before human cruelty. 15. In my Tratado de Direito Internacional dos Direitos Humanos, I allow myself to stress precisely the projection of human suffering in time and the focus centered on the victims in the Human Rights International Law. As I state therein, inter alia, regarding that matter: "Human Rights International Law, as essentially inclined to the victim condition, has contributed, to a great extent, to return them the core position they have today in the legal world, - which is its raison d´être. The focusing on the victims in the conceptual universe of Human Rights International Law, not enough analyzed by the legal contemporary doctrine until now, is of paramount relevance and it entails practical consequences. Indeed, it is the very essence of Human Rights International Law, as it reaches its plenitude in the protection extended to the victims. But the rationale of its protection rules and regulations is not exhausted with the protection granted to people already victimized. Human Rights International Law, by its sole existence, universally recognized in our time, protects human beings also by means of the prevention of victimization. The scope of its corpus juris must be appreciated also from that perspective. (...) Human Rights International Law thus contributes to the process of humanization of International Law.14 The treatment given to human beings by the public power is no longer alien to International Law. On the contrary, it is a part thereof, as the rights to which every human being is entitled derive directly from International Law. Individuals are, in fact, subjects of domestic as well as international law. And they have a central position in the scope of Human Rights International Law, whether or not they are victims of violations of their internationally consecrated rights."15 II. Acknowledgment of International Liability by the Respondent Government. 16. Regarding to the preliminary considerations of this Judgment in the case of Ximenes-Lopes, we must not disregard that the Inter-American Court pondered the acknowledgment of international liability by the Respondent State as a “positive contribution to the development of this process and to the enforcement of the principles that inspire the American Convention in Brazil” (para. 80), particularly regarding the acknowledgment of the violation of Articles 4 and 5 of the Convention (paragraphs 119 and 122). With that, the controversy regarding certain facts of the case was over, although the Court wouldn’t have been naturally exempted from proceeding, as it was the case, according to its own assessment of the facts. 17. Moreover, as it arises from the public hearing before this Court of November 1 and December 1, 2005, the parties involved showed a constructive spirit of procedural cooperation and common sense and professionalism when forwarding the 13 . Simone Weil, La Fuente Griega, Madrid, Ed. Trotta, 2005 [reed.], p. 66. . As we repeatedly pointed out in our Separate Opinions in Judgments of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, as, inter alia, in the cases of "Meninos de Rua" (Street Children) (Villagrán Morales et al. v. Guatemala (Reparations, 2001), of Blake v. Guatemala (Merit, 1998, and Reparations, 1999), of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala (Merit, 2000, and Reparations, 2002), as well as in our Concurring Opinion in the Inter-American Court of Human Rights Opinion on the Right to Information on Consular Assistance within the Scope of Due Process of Law Guarantees (1999). 14 . A.A. Cançado Trindade, Tratado de Direito Internacional dos Direitos Humanos, vol. III, Porto Alegre, S.A. Fabris Ed., 2003, pp. 434-436, paras. 48 and 50. 15