Human Rights,107 in order to include in it, and therefore consolidate, the regulatory advances already made, and more. 143. With this purpose in mind I prepared, by designation of my peers, as rapporteur and President of the Court, and I presented to the Organization of American States (OAS), in May 2001, my Report named Bases para un Proyecto de Protocolo a la Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos, para Fortalecer Su Mecanismo de Protección.108 Since then said Report has invariably marked presence in the agenda of the General Assembly of the OAS from 2001 up to 2008 (in the corresponding documents of the Assemblies of San Jose, Costa Rica in 2001, of Bridgetown/Barbados in 2002, of Santiago, Chile in 2003, of Quito in 2004, as well as those of the following Assemblies of 2005-2006109 and 2007-2008). The aforementioned Report gives hope that the jus standi of individuals directly before the Inter-American Court may be reached in the future. 3. The Right to a Fair Trial as an Imperative of the Jus Cogens. 144. I finally move on to the last aspect of my final reflections in the present Concurring Opinion, regarding the right to a fair trial as an imperative of the jus cogens. Three years ago, in my Curso General de Derecho Internacional Público, offered in the Academy of International Law of The Hague in 2005, I characterized the doctrinal and jurisprudential construction of the international jus cogens as characteristic of a new jus gentium, International Law for Humanity. I also held that, in this understanding, and according to its definition, the international jus cogens goes beyond treaties law, extending to the law on the State’s international responsibility, and to the entire corpus juris of Contemporary International law, and including, finally, all juridical acts. By covering all International Law, it also projects itself on domestic law, invalidating any measure or act not compatible with it. The jus cogens has a direct effect on the foundations themselves of a Universal International Law and it is a basic pillar of the new jus gentium.110 . 107 In the light of Article 77(1) of the American Convention. . A.A. Cançado Trindade, Bases para un Proyecto de Protocolo a la Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos, para Fortalecer Su Mecanismo de Protección, tomo II, 2a. ed., San José de Costa Rica, CtIADH, 2003, pp. 3-64, and cf. pp. 651015. There I recommended amendments to Articles 50(2), 51(1), 59, 65, 68, 75, and 77 of the American Convention, and also to Article 62, in order to make the jurisdiction of the Court (in contentious cases) automatically compelling for all the States Parties to the Convention, not admitting any type of restrictions, without the need of an additional demonstration of consent, following the ratification of the Convention. 108 . OAS, doc. AG/RES.2129 (XXXV-0/050), of 06.07.2005, pp. 1-3; OAS, doc. CP/CAJP-2311/05/Rev.2, of 02.27.2006, pp. 1-3. Cf., in this regard, A.A. Cançado Trindade, El Derecho Internacional de los Derechos Humanos en el Siglo XXI, 2a. ed., Santiago, Editorial Jurídica de Chile, 2006, pp. 9-10 and 515-524. 109 . A.A. Cançado Trindade, "International Law for Humankind: Towards a New Jus Gentium - General Course on Public International Law - Part I", 316 Recueil des Cours de l'Académie de Droit International de la Haye (2005), cap. XII, pp. 336-346. 110