12 In my eyes, to stop the advances made by the integrative hermeneutics of the InterAmerican Court regarding the matter under study, assumed by the Court as of the Judgment of Castillo Páez, would be like letting the rock fall down the mountain. Regarding the subject under study, one must start with the whole in order to reach the details, and not vice versa, because, on the contrary, you incur in the great risk of seeing only a few of the closest tree, and missing the entire forest. 33. Fortunately, in the case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre, there was a general consensus of the Court in dealing jointly, as should be, with Articles 8(1) and 25 of the American Convention, in relation with its Article 1(1), - but I can not believe that only 24 hours after achieving said general consensus of the Court, in the same sense, in the adoption of the judgment in the case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre, there was an intent – by a very small minority – to completely change the criteria in this sense, without the most minimum justification from the facts of the present case of López Alvarez. This has happened before, and the Court can not simply be at the mercy of the wind if it wants to maintain its credibility. 34. I am, as I have always been open to changes in the Court’s position, as long as they are in favor of ensuring a more effective protection of the human being. I do not accept regressive positions, that damage said protection, and that do not present the least persuasive force and due foundation. This is why I have always tried to, for as long as possible, throughout the years before this Court, duly justify my position, that has always been the result of a lot of though, and without doubt placing the victims in the central position they deserve within the present realm of protection. 35. Little after the previously analyzed advances, in the sense of an integrative hermeneutics in the case-law of the Inter-American Court, I wrote, in my Tratado de Derecho Internacional de los Derechos Humanos (volume II, 1999), in an almost premonitory tone, 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 construida. O direito a um recurso efetivo ante os tribunais nacionais competentes no âmbito da proteção judicial (artigos 25 e 8 da Convenção Americana) é muito mais relevante do que até recentemente se supôs, em um continente, como o nosso, marcado por casuísmos que muito freqüentemente privam os indivíduos da proteção do direito. Requer considerável desenvolvimento jurisprudencial nos próximos anos."25 36. Even so, I hoped not to have to go into details again regarding this matter (and specifically the intimate relationship between Articles 25 and 8 of the American Convention), in my point of view pacific in the most lucid legal international doctrine, even having in its favor the interpretation and application of the treaties on human rights – to which I dedicated a chapter of no less than 177 pages in my Treaty.26 Today, at the beginning of 2006, I see that this is not so, not even in the heart of this Court. The rock has to be pushed again toward the top of the mountain, knowing that tomorrow it may fall back down. 25 A.A. Cançado Trindade, Tratado de Direito Internacional dos Direitos Humanos, volume II, Porto Alegre/Brazil, S.A. Fabris Ed., 1999, p. 67, para. 70. 26 Cf. ibid., chapter XI, pp. 23-200.