3 10. Fourth, if the individual petitioner in question, faced by the double negative of the Commission, resorts to the Court and the latter abstains from taking any measures, owing to the alleged lack of basis in the Convention (because the case is pending before the Commission and not before the Court) and in the Rules of Procedure – even to fill this apparent legal vacuum and change the actual situation (based on considerations of equity praeter legem) – there could be a denial of justice at the international level. In two recent cases, I cautioned the Court in this regard.8 11. At the present time, I do not detect any receptiveness on the part of either the Commission or the Court to make this qualitative leap that I am proposing. Furthermore, I consider that, if the current lack of receptiveness (on this specific point) that I detect in the two organs of supervision of the American Convention had prevailed in 2000, we might not have achieved some of the regulatory changes that strengthened the direct access of individuals to the international instances of the American Convention; in other words, their access to international justice. II. Brief reflections de lege ferenda. 12. Therefore – and, like Ionesco’s rhinoceros, je ne capitule pas – in this separate opinion, I wish to insist on my line of reasoning – as I have recently within the Court – in favor of the individual’s full access to international justice within the framework of the American Convention. Allow me to refer here to the draft protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights to strengthen its protection mechanism, which I drafted (as the Court’s rapporteur) and submitted (as President of the Court) to the Organization of American States (OAS) in May 2001,9 and which has invariably appeared on the agenda of the OAS General Assembly (for example, the Assemblies of San José, Costa Rica, in 2001, Bridgetown, Barbados, in 2002, Santiago, Chile, in 2003, and Quito, Ecuador, in 2004), and remains present in OAS documents for the biennium 2005-2006.10 I hope that, in the near future, it will have concrete results. 13. In this document, I proposed, inter alia, that Article 77 of the Convention should, in my opinion, be amended so that not only any State Party and the Commission, but also the Court, can present draft additional protocols to the American Convention – as naturally corresponds to the highest-ranking organ of supervision of the Convention – in order to expand the list of rights protected by the Convention and strengthen the protection mechanism established in the Convention.11 . Cf. ICourtHR, the Brothers Dante, Jorge and José Peirano Basso v. Uruguay, letter of July 7, 2006, from Judges A.A. Cançado Trindade and M.E. Ventura Robles to the President of the Court, doc. CDH-S/1181, pp. 1-2; Loretta Ortiz Ahlf et al. Mexican citizens v. Mexico, letter of September 19, 2006, from Judge A.A. Cançado Trindade to the acting President of the Court, doc. Corte IDH/1641, p. 1. 8 9 . Cf. A.A. Cançado Trindade, Bases for a Draft Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights to Strengthen Its Mechanism for Protection - Volume II, 2a. ed., San José, Costa Rica, InterAmerican Court of Human Rights, 2003. 10 . OAS, document AG/RES.2129 (XXXV-0/050), of June 7, 2005, pp. 1-3; OAS, document CP/CAJP2311/05/Rev.2, of February 27, 2006, pp. 1-3. . In addition, I stated that the Statute of the Inter-American Court (1979) also requires a series of amendments (which I indicated in the said document). I added that Articles 24(3) and 28 of the Statute needed to be amended: in Article 24(3), the words “shall be delivered in public session” should be 11