10 account in the determination of the legal regime of obligations erga omnes, and in particular of the juridical consequences of violations of such obligations. Last but not least, I support the reference (...) to the qualification of "grave" breaches of erga omnes obligations, as they affect fundamental values shared by the international community as a whole and are owed to this latter, which, in my view, comprises all States as well as other subjects of international law. All of us who have accumulated experience in the resolution of human rights cases know for sure that rather often we have been faced with situations which have disclosed an unfortunate diversification of the sources of grave violations of the rights of the human person (such as systematic practices of torture, of forced disappearance of persons, of summary or extra-legal executions, of traffic of persons and contemporary forms of slave work, of gross violations of the fundamental principle of equality and non-discrimination) - on the part of State as well as of non-State agents (such as clandestine groups, unidentified agents, death squads, paramilitary, and the like). This has required a clear recognition of the effects of the conventional obligations of protection also vis-à-vis third parties (the Drittwirkung), including individuals (identified and unidentified ones). I feel that we cannot adequately approach erga omnes obligations, compliance with which benefits ultimately the human person, - from a strictly inter-State perspective or dimension, which would no longer reflect the complexity of the contemporary international legal order. Obligations erga omnes have a horizontal dimension, in the sense that they are owed to the international community as a whole, to all subjects of international law, but they also have also a vertical dimension, in the sense that they bind everyone, both the organs and agents of the State, of public power, as well as the individuals themselves (including in inter-individual relations, where grave breaches also do occur)"12. 28. Fiel a su más lúcida jurisprudencia, y a una hermenéutica integradora (y no desagregadora) de la normativa de la Convención Americana, la Corte Interamericana, en la presente Sentencia, ha relacionado inter se las violaciones establecidas de la Convención Americana, de los derechos a la vida, a la integridad personal, y a la libertad personal (artículos 4, 5 y 7), además de los derechos del niño (artículo 19) y de libertad de movimiento (artículo 22(1), en razón del desplazamiento forzado, infra), sumadas a la violación del deber general de garantía del artículo 1(1) de la Convención (párrs. 137, 145, 162, 184 y 189). La Corte ha reconocido expresamente que dichas violaciones encuéntranse todas relacionadas entre sí, y no pueden ser desvinculadas una de la otra (párr. 186). 29. En fin, al rescatar el gran aporte doctrinal de su memorable Opinión Consultiva n. 18 sobre La Condición Jurídica y los Derechos de los Migrantes Indocumentados (2003), la Corte ha resaltado el "vínculo indisoluble" entre las obligaciones erga omnes de protección y el carácter de jus cogens del principio básico de igualdad y no-discriminación, que impone a los Estados el deber especial de tomar todas las medidas necesarias para asegurar la protección de los derechos humanos con respecto a "actuaciones y prácticas de terceros que, bajo su tolerancia o aquiescencia, creen, mantengan o favorezcan las situaciones discriminatorias" (párr. 178). Con esto, la Corte no ha dejado pasar al olvido y desapercibido el silencio de las . Intervención oral de A.A. Cançado Trindade en la Sesión de Cracovia (agosto de 2005), todavía no publicada (y destinada a publicación en el próximo tomo del Annuaire del referido Institut). 12