4 Arellano et al. v. Chile (Judgment of September 26, 2006) in relation to the utter incompatibility of the 1978 self-amnesty executive order issued by the Pinochet regime with the American Convention. 8. Moreover, and turning to the past decade, in my Dissenting Opinion in the Case of Caballero-Delgado and Santana v. Colombia (Judgment on reparations of January 29, 1997), I stated, regarding to the interrelation between the general duties to respect and to ensure respect for the protected rights and to harmonize the domestic legal order with the international norms of protection of the American Convention (para. 6), that: “In fact, those two general obligations, - which are added to the other specific conventional obligations concerning each of the protected rights, - are incumbent upon the States Parties by the application of International Law itself, of a general principle (pacta sunt servanda) whose source is metajuridical, in seeking to be based, beyond the individual consent of each State, on considerations concerning the binding character of the duties derived from international treaties. In the present domain of protection, the States Parties have the general obligation, arising from a general principle of International Law, to take all measures of domestic law to guarantee the effective protection (effet utile) of the recognized rights. The two general obligations enshrined in the American Convention - that of respecting and guaranteeing the protected rights (Article 1(1)) and that of harmonizing domestic law with the international norms of protection (Article 2) - appear to me to be ineluctably intertwined. (…) As those conventional norms bind the States Parties - and not only their governments, - in addition to the Executive, the Legislative and the Judicial Powers are also under the obligation to take the necessary measures to give effectiveness to the American Convention at domestic law level. Non-compliance with the conventional obligations, as known, engages the international responsibility of the State, for acts or omissions, either of the Executive Power, or of Legislative, or of the Judiciary. In sum, the international obligations of protection, which in their wide scope are incumbent upon all the powers of the State (…).” (Paras. 8-10). IV. The Provisional Measures of Protection of the Inter-American Court and Erga Omnes Protection Obligations 9. I shall now turn to the next point in my brief reflections in this Matter of the Penitentiary in Araraquara. In my Concurring Opinion in the Matter of the Peace Community of San José de Apartadó (Order on Provisional Measures of protection of June 18, 2002), I allowed myself to point out that the protection obligation of a State extends not only to the relationship between said State and the persons subject to its jurisdiction but also, under certain circumstances, to the relationships among private individuals; this is a true erga omnes protection obligation. As I stated in the aforesaid Opinion, we stand, in short, before a State’s erga omnes protection obligation towards all persons subject to its jurisdiction, which becomes increasingly important in the face of chronic violence and insecurity -as is the case in this Matter of the Penitentiary in Araraquara -, which, as I explained in my Concurring Opinion in the Matter of Urso Branco Prison (Order on Provisional Measures of Protection Regarding Brazil of July 7, 2004) - and restate here“(…) clearly requires the recognition of the effects of the American Convention vis-à-vis third parties (the Drittwirkung), without which conventional obligations of protection would be reduced to little more than dead letter. In my view, the rationale built on the thesis of objective responsibility of the State is - if I may state this again- ineluctable, particularly in the case of provisional measures of protection, as is in this case. The aim, here, is to prevent irreparable damage to members of a community (...), in situations of extreme gravity and urgency, which involve the action (…) of military and police bodies and agents.” (paras. 14-15)