2 Measures of Protection directly to the Court, avoiding the prior insistence of the Commission on the application of its precautionary measures. This situation is aggravated when the Commission denies the precautionary measures requested by petitioners without sufficient grounds for denial and when petitioners are not allowed to resort to the Court since their cases are being heard by the Commission and not by the Court. 6. In my opinion, such cases may involve a denial of the right of access to international jurisdiction. Thus, I wish to point out in this Separate Opinion my personal views regarding this matter, now in the twilight of my time as Regular Judge of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (tempus fugit). I do it in furtherance of the perfection of the significant preventive mechanism of protection involved in the American Convention, and without denying my vote of trust in the common sense of my colleagues, both of the Court and of the Inter-American Commission. 7. First, in my opinion, the prerequisite of the prior exhaustion of domestic remedies is not applied to the requests for Provisional Measures of Protection; said requisite is a condition to the admissibility of petitions by the Commission, regarding the merits (and contingent reparations) of the particular case. On the other hand, the Provisional Measures of Protection are heard in a summary proceeding, in accordance with the preventive/protective nature of said legal device, and as they do not involve a prejudgment on the merits of the case. 8. Second, in my opinion there is no need to exhaust the provisional measures of the Commission before resorting to the Inter-American Court and requesting Provisional Measures of Protection. I have stated so in my Separate Opinion annexed to a recent Order of the Court on Provisional Measures of Protection. 7 Moreover, the provisional measures of the Commission are only grounded on regulatory rules, and not in a convention, and they cannot delay -sometimes for an indefinite time- the application of the Provisional Measures of Protection of the Court, which are grounded on conventional rules. 9. As I added in the above-cited Concurrent Opinion, “in any and every circumstance the protection obligation must prevail over the apparent institutional jealousy,” and especially in situations of “chronic violence”. 8 The Commission´s insistence on its practice of the prior precautionary measures may, in some cases, have prejudicial consequences for the potential victims, and create another obstacle for them to overcome. In certain cases, it may involve a denial of justice at international level. 10. Third, in case of denial of the precautionary measures by the Commission, such decision must be properly grounded. The decisions of the Commission and of the Court regarding both precautionary and provisional measures, respectively, must always be sufficiently grounded, as guarantee of the principle of contradiction –a general principle of law-, so that petitioners may feel confident that their case has been duly and adequately considered by the international body, and so that the . Cf. Inter-American Court of Human Rights [I/A Court H.R.], Order of 11.17.2005 in the Matter of Children Deprived of Liberty in the "Complexo do Tatuapé" of FEBEM. Regarding Brasil, Concurrent Opinion of Judge A.A. Cançado Trindade, para. 3. 7 . 8 Ibid., para. 5.