2 3 and 4), I do not see how we can exclude from the instant Judgment that the mentioned Article 114 bis, in fine, of the Ecuadorian Criminal Code, in force at the time when the facts of this case Acosta Calderón (including the period in which he was imprisoned) occurred, incurred in a violation of Article 2 (domestic legal effects), in combination with Article 24 (right to equality before the law), of the American Convention.2 7. The mentioned Article 114 bis, in fine, of the Ecuadorian Criminal Code, applied in the instant case, violated Article 2 of the American Convention precisely because it was discriminatory; consequently it also violated Article 24 of the same instrument. Thus, I separate myself from the Court on this point, for having the Tribunal avoided the situation and not having been consistent with their own recent jurisprudential evolution. Even more, the Court stopped following, in this sense, the criteria that oriented it in the Judgment adopted yesterday, June 23, 2005, in the case of Yatama versus Nicaragua. With this superveniens period of time, within a term of only 24 hours, in matters so relevant as the principle of jus cogens of equality and non-discrimination,3 the Court, on this specific issue, has unfortunately slowed down its own jurisprudential development. 8. As has been held by the Court in its Advisory Opinion No. 18, of 2003, the States Members of the Convention may not issue measures that violate the rights enshrined in it; in virtue of the peremptory nature of the basic principle of equality and nondiscrimination, “States have the obligation to combat discriminatory practices and not to introduce discriminatory regulations into their laws” (para. 88). The serious evils or our times, - drug trafficking, terrorism, organized crime, among so many others, - must be combated from within the Law, since they can not simply be confronted with their own weapons: said evils may only be overcome from within the Law. 2 It has been proven before the Court (in the Judgment of Reparations of 01.20.1999, in the case of Suárez Rosero, para. 82) that, on 12.24.1997, the Ecuadorian Constitutional Tribunal declared Article 114 bis of the Criminal Code unconstitutional. However, pursuant to that alleged by the representatives, on 12.18.1997 an amendment to the Code of Compliance of Judgments in which a discriminatory rule was allegedly included was introduced (supra, para. 129(f)). Anyway, analysis of the scope of the amendments of 12.18.1997 alleged by the representatives (i.e., its non-compatibility or not with the American Convention) would not proceed in the instant case because they occurred after the facts of the cas d’espece, since Mr. R. Acosta Calderón was released on 07.29.1996. 3 On the relevance of said principle, cf. A.A. Cançado Trindade, Tratado de Direito Internacional dos Direitos Humanos, vol. II, Porto Alegre/ Brazil, S.A. Fabris Ed., 1999, pp. 76-82.