79. The Court reiterated this warning ipsis literis in the cases of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers (Judgment of 07.08.2004, para. 111), and of Lori Berenson (Judgment of 11.25.2004, para. 100), both regarding Peru, as well as in the case of Tibi versus Ecuador (Judgment of 09.08.2004), in which it also stated that “there is an international juridical regime of absolute prohibition of all the forms of torture, both physical and psychological, regime that currently belongs to the sphere of the jus cogens (para. 143). Still regarding the subject in examination, in my Concurring Opinion in the case of the Mapiripán Massacre versus Colombia (Judgment of 09.15.2005), I allowed myself to consider that "One does not combat terror with terror, but rather within the framework of the Law. Those who resort to the use of brute force brutalize themselves, creating a spiral of widespread violence that ends up turning the innocent (…) into victims. (...) Brute force generates brute force, and at the end, what do we have? Nothing, general devastation, the breakdown of the social fabric, vengeance, torture, and summary executions and other grave violations of International Humanitarian Law and International Human Rights Law, the transformation of human beings into mere instruments of confrontation and destruction –opening wounds that will require generations to heal." (paras. 46-47) 80. In confirmation of the understanding held by the Court regarding the matter in examination, the Inter-American Convention against Terrorism (2002) states, in its Article 15, that the measures adopted by the States Parties pursuant to its regulations “will be carried out with full respect for the rule of Law, human rights, and fundamental freedoms.” (para. 1) It immediately safeguards the conventional obligations of the States Parties pursuant to “International Humanitarian Law, International Human Rights Law, and International Refugee Law.” (para. 2) And it adds that “any person who is taken into custody or regarding whom any other measures are taken or proceedings are carried out pursuant to this Convention shall be guaranteed fair treatment, including the enjoyment of all rights and guarantees in conformity with the law of the state in the territory of which that person is present and applicable provisions of international law."49 3. Victims and Precisions with regard to the Applicable Law. 81. In my General Course of International Public Law,50 offered in the Academy of International Law of The Hague in 2005, when referring to the Final Reports of contemporary Commissions of Truth,51 I allowed myself to state precisely that . I was present, as President at that time of the Inter-American Court, in the General Assembly of the Organization of American States (OAS) of 2002, held in Bridgetown, Barbados, upon the adoption of the Inter-American Convention Against Terrorism and in the three days that preceded it. I remember that the insertion of the important Article 15 in the Inter-American Convention Against Terrorism resulted from a successful Latin American diplomatic initiative, presented at the last minute during the final stage of its travaux préparatoires, a little before the adoption of the mentioned Convention in the full session of 06.03.2002 of the General Assembly of the OAS (resolution AG/RES.1840 (XXXII-0/02)). The mentioned Article 15 must receive credit for enshrining, in an unmistakable manner, the protection of human rights in midst of the fight against terrorism. 49 . Chapter XV, on the responsibility for international crimes and universal jurisdiction. 50