-1643. In the judgment that the Inter-American Court has just adopted in the Pueblo Bello Massacre case, it has adhered to its best case law, by examining together the alleged – and proven – violations of Articles 25 and 8(1), in relation to Article 1(1) of the American Convention (paras. 206 and 212). Access to justice and the guarantees of due process of law are unavoidably interrelated. This is clear from, inter alia, the Court’s deliberations in this case, "The investigation and the proceedings conducted in the ordinary criminal jurisdiction have not represented an effective recourse that guaranteed, within a reasonable time, the right of access to justice of the next of kin of those who were disappeared or deprived of life, with full observance of judicial rights" (para. 188). VIII. The indivisibility of Articles 25 and 8 of the American Convention as an inviolable advance in case law 44. However, it cannot be assumed that there will be a linear, constant and inevitable advance in the relevant international case law, because institutions are the people who run them and, like clouds or waves, they vacillate as is inherent to the human condition. Today, I can see clearly that working for the international protection of human rights is like the myth of Sisyphus, an unending task. It resembles constantly pushing up the side of a mountain a rock that continually falls back down and must be pushed up again. The work of protection continues with advances and setbacks. 45. When descending the mountain in order to push the rock upwards once again, one is aware of the human condition and of the tragedy encompassing it. But the struggle must continue; there is no alternative: "Sisyphe, revenant vers son rocher, contemple cette suite d'actions sans lien qui devient son destin, créé par lui, uni sous le regard de sa mémoire et bientôt scellé par sa mort. (...) Sisyphe enseigne la fidélité supérieure qui (...) soulève les rochers. (...) La lutte elle-même vers les sommets suffit à remplir un coeur d'homme. Il faut imaginer Sisyphe heureux."36 I consider that halting the progress achieved by the Inter-American Court’s integrating hermeneutics on this issue, starting with the Castillo Páez judgment, would be comparable to allowing the rock to roll back down the mountain. Regarding the issue being examined, it is necessary to look at it as a whole before considering the details, and not vice versa; otherwise, there is a risk of seeing only a few of the nearest trees and losing sight of the forest. 46. Fortunately, in this Pueblo Bello Massacre case, there was consensus within the Court to examine Articles 8(1) and 25 of the American Convention together, as is correct, in relation to Article 1(1). The Court’s reasoning in this regard was never questioned. Shortly after the advance described above concerning the integrating hermeneutics in the Inter-American Court’s case law, I wrote in an almost premonitory tone, in my Tratado de Derecho Internacional de los Derechos Humanos (tome II, 1999), that: "É importante que este avanço na jurisprudência da Corte Interamericana seja preservado e desenvolvido ainda mais no futuro. (...) No sistema interamericano de proteção, a jurisprudência sobre a matéria encontra-se em sua infância, e deve continuar a ser cuidadosamente construída. O direito a um recurso efetivo ante os 36 . A. Camus, Le mythe de Sisyphe, Paris, Gallimard, 1942, p. 168.