SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE A.A. CANÇADO TRINDADE 1. When voting in favor of the adoption by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of this judgment in YATAMA v. Nicaragua, I am obliged to add this separate opinion in order to emphasize two points that I believe deserve special attention. First, when rejecting the third preliminary objection filed by the State, the Court’s ruling reflects the perfecting of the proceeding before the Court in recent years, particularly since the adoption of its current Rules of Procedure on November 24, 2000, in force since June 1, 2001. Based on the evolution embodied in these Rules of Procedure, the individual is strengthened as a subject of international human rights law endowed with full international juridical and procedural capacity, in particular owing to the historic change introduced by Article 23 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure granting him locus standi in judicio throughout the proceedings before the Court. 2. Moreover, the addition of a new paragraph introduced by the Court into Article 33 in fine of the said Rules of Procedure (paragraph in force as of January 1, 2004), to the effect that, if the information on the representatives of the alleged victims and their next of kin is not provided in the application, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights: "shall act on behalf of the alleged victims and their next of kin in its capacity as guarantor of the public interest under the American Convention on Human Rights to ensure that they have the benefit of legal representation.” - provided a definitive clarification of the full scope of the individual right of access to the supreme judicial body under the American Convention on Human Rights. 3. In my opinion, this noteworthy evolution will be complete the day on which – as I have been affirming for some time - the alleged victims are granted jus standi before the Court.1 Nevertheless, there can no longer be any doubt that it is not possible to cite alleged lacunae concerning the legal representation of the alleged victims to try and restrict their access to the Court. The extraordinary qualitative leap made by the Court over the period November 2000 to January 2004, with regard to the international juridical and procedural capacity of the individual under the American Convention, admits of no turning back. 4. In this sphere, there is no vacatio legis; nor can the alleged victims be defenseless. In circumstances such as the cas d'espèce, the Court can and should hear the case; as the Court correctly reasoned when rejecting the third preliminary objection filed by the State: "If an application was not admitted owing to lack of representation, there would be an undue restriction that would deprive the alleged victim of the possibility of access to justice."2 . A.A. Cançado Trindade, Bases para un Proyecto de Protocolo a la Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos, para Fortalecer Su Mecanismo de Protección, First edition, San José, Costa Rica, Inter-American Court of Human Rights, 2001, pp. 1-669 (and Second edition, 2003, pp. 1-750). 1 . 2 Paragraph 86, and cf. paras. 95-96.