14 43. It would, therefore, be an institutional structure distinct from that of the European system of protection, attentive to the reality of the needs of protection of our continent. But it would have in common with that system, the purpose of overcoming duplications, delays and procedural imbalances, inherent to the current mechanism of protection under the American Convention42, which require its improvement. Above all, this qualitative advance would fulfill, in my understanding, an imperative of justice. The jus standi - no longer only locus standi in judicio, without restrictions, of individuals, before the Inter-American Court itself, represents, - as I have indicated in my Opinions in other cases before the Court43, the logical consequence of the conception and formulation of rights to be protected under the American Convention at international level, to which it ought to correspond necessarily the full juridical capacity of the individual petitioners to vindicate them. 44. The jurisdiccionalization of the mechanism of protection becomes an imperative as from the recognition of the essentially distinct roles of the individual petitioners - the true complainant party - and of the Commission (organ of supervision of the Convention which assists the Court). Under the American Convention, the individuals mark presence at the beginning of the process, in exercising the right of petition in view of the alleged damages, as well as at the end of it, as beneficiaries of the reparations, in cases of proven violations of their rights; there is no sense in denying them presence during the process. The right of access to justice at international level ought in fact to be accompanied by the guarantee of procedural equality (equality of arms/égalité des armes) in the proceedings before the judicial organ, an element essential to any jurisdictional mechanism of protection of human rights, without which such mechanism will be irremediably mitigated. 45. In order to reach this degree of procedural improvement, we ought to count on the necessary and indispensable full belief on the part of the States that integrate the inter-American system of protection that the jus standi of individuals before the Court is a measure to the benefit not only of the petitioners but also of themselves (those which become respondent States), as well as of the mechanism of protection as a whole. And this by virtue of the jurisdictionalization, an additional guarantee of the prevalence of the rule of law in the whole contentieux of human rights under the American Convention. 46. If we really wish to act at the height of the challenges of our times, it is to the consolidation of such jus standi that we ought to promptly devote ourselves, with the same clear vision and lucid boldness with which the draftsmen of the American Convention originally conceived the right of individual petition. With the conventional basis which was conveyed to us by Article 44 of the American Convention, we do not need to wait half a century to give concrete expression to the jus standi above referred to. With the consolidation of this latter, it is the international protection 41. As well as to that of the European Convention, which served as model to it. 42. Cf., in this sense, my Separate Opinions in cases Castillo Páez (Preliminary Objections, Judgment of 30.01.1996), pars. 14-17, and Loayza Tamayo (Preliminary Objections, Judgment of 31.01.1996), pars. 14-17, respectively, reproduced in: OAS, Informe Anual de la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos - 1996, pp. 56-57 and 72-73, respectively.