2 b) to develop the possibilities of judicial remedy; and c) to ensure that the competent authorities shall enforce such remedies when granted. The Court has also decreed the violation of Article 1(1) of the Convention independently of other violations of other articles. 2 In addition, the violation of Articles 8(1) and 25 has been considered and declared autonomously, without considering them in relation to Article 1(1) of the Convention. 3 In addition, the Court has applied Articles 8(1) and 25 in relation to articles of the Convention other than Article 1(1). 4 Consequently, suggesting that the Court should consider that it cannot declare the violation of Articles 8(1) and 25 independently, as an autonomous violation, but only in relation to another basic right which cannot be Article 1(1), is to affirm that the American Convention does not protect the right to justice and would be attempting to bestow on Articles 8(1) and 25 the nature of general provisions which, as in the case of Article 1(1), permeate the entire Convention, and the result of this would be to denature the very content of Articles 8(1) and 25. To change the Court’s case law on this issue, after the more than 20 years that it has been exercising its jurisdictional function, is confusing, in addition to being inappropriate and unnecessary. It introduces an element of distortion in the deliberation of future cases. Manuel E. Ventura Robles Judge Pablo Saavedra Alessandri Secretary 2 Cf. IACHR, Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán-Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C No. 63. 3 Cf. IACHR, Case of Baena-Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Judgment of February 2, 2001. Series C No. 72; and ICHR, Case of Las Palmeras v. Colombia. Judgment of December 6, 2001. Series C No. 90. 4 Cf. IACHR, Case of Servellón-García et al. v. Honduras. Judgment of September 21, 2006. Series C No. 152; ICHR, Case of Vargas-Areco v. Paraguay. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 155.