8 distinctly from other treaties the validity (vigencia) of which may even be expressly limited in time, human rights treaties create obligations of protection of an objective character, without temporal restriction. Thus, even though foreseen the denunciation (through certain requisites), its application, in an extreme case, ought to be subject to controls, as it is not reasonable that a State Party undertakes to respect human rights and to secure their full exercise only for some years, and that, once the treaty was denounced, everything would be permissible... 21. No one would dare to attempt to sustain that position. Moreover, even if the denunciation was made, there would subsist in relation to the denouncing State the obligations set forth in the treaty which correspond also to rules of customary international law, which would deprive the denunciation of any practical effect. In the long run, there is an element of intemporality in the corpus juris of the International Law of Human Rights, as it is a law of protection (droit de protection) of the human being as such, irrespective of his nationality or of any other condition or circumstance, and thereby constructed to be applied without temporal limitation, that is, all the time. The law of treaties cannot keep on not taking into due account this element of intemporality proper to the International Law of Human Rights. 22. Definitively, also in the law of treaties, - in relation, e.g., to reservations 22 and denunciation (supra), as well as to other aspects , - the voluntarism of the States has its limits, without which the object and purpose of human rights treaties would hardly be fulfilled. In any case, if a State Party in fact complied with the general duty to harmonize its domestic law with the international norms of 23 protection , it would be very difficult to make the denunciation, by reason to the controls of domestic law itself in a democratic State. No State Party to a human rights treaty would contemplate, in all conscience, the faculty of denunciation (even if foreseen), given the highly negative effect which this latter would have on the objetive regime of protection, inspired in superior common values and applied in conformity with the notion of collective guarantee, which that same State helped to establish and consolidate, when it ratified, or acceded to, the treaty at issue. VI. The Imperative Norms of International Law (Jus Cogens). 23. In an intervention in the debates of 12 March 1986 of the Vienna Conference on the Law of Treaties between States and International Organizations or between International Organizations, I allowed myself to draw attention to the manifest incompatibility with the concept of jus cogens of the voluntarist conception of international law, which is not capable even of explaining the formation of the does not provide for denunciation; in this respect, the Human Rights Committee, operating under the Covenant, in its general comment n. 26(61), of October 1997, sustained that the Covenant at issue, by its own nature, does not admit the possibility of denunciation. 22. To recall one of them, in providing for the conditions in which a violation of a treaty may bring about its termination or the suspension of its operation, the two Vienna Conventions on the Law of Treaties expressly and specifically except therefrom "the provisions relating to the protection of the human person contained in treaties of humanitarian character" (Article 60(5)), - in a true clause of safeguard in defence of the human being. 23. As set forth, e.g., in Article 2 of the American Convention on Human Rights.