Separate Opinion of Judge Sergio García Ramírez With regard to the Order of The Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 8, 2008 Regarding the Matter of Rodeo I and Rodeo II Capital Judicial Confinement Center 1. I concur with the adoption of provisional measures regarding the inmates of the judicial confinement centers of Rodeo I and Rodeo II, by means of Order of February 8, 2008, to which I add this Opinion. The Court analyzed, in the considering clauses of such Order, several issues concerning the provisional measures that the Court orders according to its conventional authority. The points of view that I now present include opinions that I have expressed, repeatedly, on numerous occasions. 2. The characteristics of the case (or matter) regarding these measures contribute to the analysis made by the Court and the exposition of criteria to which later on I shall refer. Thus, a) It is about a group of inmates living at confinement centers, not isolated persons whose rights are at risk; b) The Commission, party who requested these measures, has taken into account frequent violent acts committed against inmates of the Rodeo Prison concerning essential rights of the human being, such as the right to life and integrity, that must be protected by means of specific and direct measures. c) The existence of acts of this nature and the adoption of measures intended to protect the corresponding rights do not exclude the possible commission of other type of violations (to a greater or lesser extent related to such) that needs to take care of by means of several public measures; and d) The matter has still not been brought to, by means of the application (or presentation of the case), the (adversarial) attention of the Court. 3. The Order to which I add this Opinion recognizes that the Inter-American Court may adopt specific binding judicial decisions with regard to problems that are not adversarial (according to the general characterization adopted in that sense) and let alone, that constitute requests (consultation) for opinion. 4. The Court exercises, then, several judicial authorities other than the commonly called consultative and contentious authority. In the exercise of such authority, the Court delivers its opinion regarding issues that are still not following the formal road of the Inter-American judicial process (preventive authority) or orders certain acts regarding the compliance with the final decisions so ordered as completion of such procedure (executive or compliance authority) (cf. my assessment of these authorities in García Ramírez, Sergio, The Inter-American Jurisdiction of Human Rights Studies, Human Rights Commission of the Federal District, Mexico, 2006, sp. Pag. 87 and s., 136-137 and 246- 247). 5. If there is the need, noticed by the Inter-American Commission, of protecting the rights at risk, but the issue has still not been brought to the Court's attention,