SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE A.A. CANÇADO TRINDADE 1. In voting in favor of the adoption, by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, of this Order on Provisional Measures of Protection in the matter of the Penitentiary in Araraquara regarding Brazil, I also feel obliged to include some personal reflections to support my position on the issues considered by the Court. I will do this, again, under severe time constraints, taking into account the fruitful public hearing held the day before yesterday, i.e. September 28, 2006, before the Court. In the very little time I have to explain my position - as I always try to do - in this Opinion, I set myself to focus my brief reflections on seven fundamental issues, to wit: a) the protective rather than precautionary nature of provisional measures of protection; b) the autonomous international responsibility regarding to provisional measures of protection under the American Convention; c) the interrelation of the general protection obligations contained in Articles 1(1) and 2 of the American Convention; d) the provisional measures of the Inter-American Court and erga omnes protection obligations; e) the broad scope of erga omnes protection obligations: their vertical and horizontal dimensions; f) the autonomous legal framework of the provisional measures of the Inter-American Court; and g) problems derived from the coexistence of precautionary measures and Provisional Measures of Protection in light of the need for individuals’ direct access to international courts. I. The Protective rather than Precautionary Nature of Provisional Measures of Protection 2. The relevance and increasing use of Provisional Measures of Protection by this Court require more and more attention, especially in situations of extreme vulnerability (of effective protection of individuals deprived of liberty in inhumane conditions of detention). From a historical perspective, the transposition of precautionary measures from the domestic legal system (as they have been interpreted by legal authors especially in Civil Procedure Law, following the valuable contribution made by Italian legal authors) to the international legal system - specifically, in interstate contentious matters-, does not seem to have caused, in this sense, a fundamental change in the object of these measures. This change has only taken place as a result of the most recent transposition of the provisional measures from the international legal system in the traditional contentious matters between States - to International Human Rights Law, with its own specificity. 3. In the conceptual universe of International Human Rights Law -as I have pointed out in several Opinions as a member of this Court as well as in different studies - provisional measures of protection have come to safeguard the fundamental rights of individuals, rather than the efficacy of the judicial function, thus becoming truly protective in nature, rather than precautionary.11 So far, the case law established . For an analysis of this evolution, cf. A.A. Cançado Trindade, Tratado de Direito Internacional dos Direitos Humanos, Vol. II, Porto Alegre, S.A. Fabris Ed., 2003, pp. 80-83; A.A. Cançado Trindade, "Provisional Measures of Protection in the Evolving Case-Law of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (1987-2001)", in El Derecho Internacional en los Albores del Siglo XXI - Homenaje al Prof. J.M. Castro-Rial Canosa (ed. F.M. Mariño Menéndez), Madrid, Publ. Trotta, 2002, pp. 61-74; A.A. Cançado Trindade, "Les Mesures provisoires de protection dans la jurisprudence de la Cour Interaméricaine des Droits de l'Homme", 4 Revista do Instituto Brasileiro de Direitos Humanos (2003) pp. 13-25; A.A. Cançado Trindade, "The Evolution of Provisional Measures of Protection under the Case-Law of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (1987-2002)", 24 Human Rights Law Journal - Strasbourg/Kehl (2003), n. 5-8, pp. 162-168. 11