11 grow and strengthen even more as the universal juridical conscience awakens towards their complete conceptual refinement. As I explained at the beginning of this Opinion, International Human Rights Law has transformed the conception itself of these measures32 —from precautionary to protective—, thus revealing the current historical process of humanization of Public International Law33 also in this specific field. However, this process is still in progress. 28. It is necessary to proceed resolutely in this direction. It is imperative, in these days, that the next step be the development of their legal framework, and, within such framework, of the legal consequences of non-compliance with or violation of provisional measures of protection, as autonomous remedies. In my view, the victims occupy, both in this context of prevention as well as in the decision on the merits (and possible reparations) of the cases, a truly central position, as subjects of International Human Rights Law and contemporary Public International Law with international legal standing.34 VII. Problems Derived from the Coexistence of Precautionary Measures and Provisional Measures of Protection in Light of the Imperative of Individuals’ Direct Access to International Justice 29. I will now address the last issue of my reflections, which I state in this Separate Opinion, constrained under the merciless pressure of time in the current insanely fast paced work environment of this Court: I am making reference to the problems derived from the coexistence of the Inter-American Commission’s precautionary measures and the Inter-American Court’s Provisional Measures, in light of the imperative of individuals’ direct access to international justice. I have addressed this issue (which reflects one of the current gaps of the Inter-American human rights system) in more detail in my recent Separate Opinions in the Court’s Orders concerning Provisional Measures of protection in the Matters of Mery Naranjo et al. regarding Colombia (of September 22, 2006) and of Gloria Giralt de García Prieto et al. regarding El Salvador (of September 26, 2006). 30. In my Separate Opinions in these two recent matters, I repeated what I have pointed out both in recent joint meetings between the Inter-American Court and the Inter-American Commission, and in several public hearing held before this Court, and in the Court’s deliberations, that in situations of extreme gravity and urgency, it is best to refer requests for Provisional Measures of protection directly to the Court, without 32 . A.A. Cançado Trindade, “Address by the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights”, in Compendium of Provisional Measures (June 2001-July 2003), Volume No. 4, Series E, San José de Costa Rica, Inter-American Court of Human Rights, 2003, pp. V-XXII. 33 . Cf. A.A. Cançado Trindade, "La Humanización del Derecho Internacional y los Límites de la Razón de Estado" (The Humanization of Internacional Law and the Limits of the Reason of the State), 40 Revista da Faculdade de Direito da Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais - Belo Horizonte/Brazil (2001) pp. ; A.A. Cançado Trindade, "General Course on Public International Law - International Law for Humankind: Towards a New Jus Gentium", Recueil des Cours de l'Académie de Droit International de La Haye (2005), (in print). 34 . A.A. Cançado Trindade, "The Procedural Capacity of the Individual as Subject of International Human Rights Law: Recent Developments", in K. Vasak Amicorum Liber - Les droits de l'homme à l'aube du XXIe siècle, Bruxelles, Bruylant, 1999, pp. 521-544; A.A. Cançado Trindade, "A Consolidação da Personalidade e da Capacidade Jurídicas do Indivíduo como Sujeito do Direito Internacional", 16 Anuario del Instituto Hispano-Luso-Americano de Derecho Internacional - Madrid (2003) pp. 237-288.