9 has emphasized that the State has the obligation, and not only the authority, to defend society against crime; (c) The Court has not ordered that a new trial should be held, because the existence of procedural violations that would make it necessary to conduct an effective trial, respecting the principles of due process on which the res judicata authority of the judgment is based, has not been proved; (d) It has merely been indicated that the State may deliver a new ruling, which would not be the death penalty. This proviso does not arise from the judgment of the Inter-American Court, but from the commitment assumed by the State when it ratified the American Convention: not to extend the applicability of the death penalty to crimes for which it was not provided for at the time of ratification; and (e) The decision that the opportunity should be provided for the parties to assert their right to a hearing concerning the new final ruling issued, reflects the awareness that this ruling will affect their claims, and therefore the guarantee of a hearing must be respected so that they may provide any evidence they deem pertinent and formulate any arguments they consider relevant. E) PRISON CONDITIONS 37. I do not wish to omit an allusion, however brief, to the other issue considered in the judgment of the Inter-American Court: the prison conditions. In various concurring opinions to judgments, provisional measures and advisory opinions, I have called attention to international standards concerning the deprivation of liberty for procedural reasons or for punishment. We are faced with a growing problem, which on many occasions has caused a crisis with dramatic results. This can happen again, in catastrophic conditions. The issue is not exhausted with this case. The Court has had the opportunity to observe its appearance and persistence in different countries in the hemisphere. It is necessary – absolutely urgent and necessary – to undertake a real prison reform, which establishes living conditions compatible with human dignity. We are far, very far, from having achieved this. F) APPRAISAL OF ACTIONS 38. The judgments of the Inter-American Court usually note and record, when applicable, the efforts made by the State to improve the prevailing situation with regard to the respect and guarantee of human rights within its jurisdiction, either by legislative measures or draft laws – such as the initiative announced by the State to incorporate into domestic law the regulation corresponding to the remedy established in Article 4(6) of the Convention, or through actions of another nature. 39. A judgment should decide on contentious matters submitted to the Court that delivers it. It is not a general appraisal of what occurs in the State. This corresponds to other types of documents – general or special reports – the elaboration of which is not within the Court’s mandate. Consequently, its resolutions are limited to the brief notes or statements to which I have referred. However, an individual opinion which is not in itself a ruling of the Court with binding effects, but rather its author’s assessment of the facts, reasoning and decisions in relation to the case sub judice, can advance a little further – although not unrestrictedly – in considering the context and expressing points of view.