3 meaning of the decision taken is clear 9 (especially in an alleged situation of the utmost seriousness and urgency, with an alleged probability of irreparable harm to human beings). 11. A denial of precautionary measures by the Commission must always and necessarily be duly grounded. Besides, an additional groundless denial by the Commission to request Provisional Measures to the Court empowers the potential victims, as subjects of the International Law on Human Rights, to resort to the Court seeking the issuance of Provisional Measures; otherwise, it could imply a denial of justice at international level. 12. Fourth, if in view of the two denials of the Commission, the individual/petitioner involved resorts to the Court, and the latter abstains from adopting any decision due to the alleged lack of conventional grounds (as the matter is pending before the Commission and not before the Court) or regulatory basis, even in order to fill this apparent legal loophole and change the present situation (based on praeter legem equitable considerations), a denial of justice at international level could arise. In other two recent cases I warned the Court on this issue.10 13. At the present time, I cannot detect in the Commission or in the Court any willingness to give the “qualitative jump” I am proposing. Moreover, I deem that, if the present insensitivity (on this specific issue) had prevailed in said two bodies responsible for monitoring the compliance with the American Convention, in year 2000, perhaps some regulatory amendments made in furtherance of the strengthening of the individuals´right of direct access to international courts under the American Convention system, that is, their access to international justice, would not have been possible. II. Brief Reflections on De Lege Ferenda 14. Thus, - and, alike Ionesco´s rhinoceros, je ne capitule pas, - in this Separate Opinion, I will insist on my reasoning -as I have recently done before the Court,- in favor of the individuals´ full access to international justice under the framework of the American Convention. Now, I shall refer to the Bases for a Draft Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights to Strengthen Its Mechanism for Protection, which I prepared (as Rapporteur of the Court) and submitted (as President of the Court) to the Organization of American States [OAS] on May 2001, 11 and which have always been included in the agenda of the OAS General Assembly (as shown by the Assembly of San José de Costa Rica in 2001, of Bridgetown/Barbados in 2002, of Santiago de Chile in 2003, and Quito in 2004), and are still included in the . Cf. [Various Authors,] Le principe du contradictoire devant les juridictions internationales (eds. H. Ruiz Fabri and J.-M. Sorel), Paris, Pédone, 2004, pp. 14, 33, 81, 86, 118 and 168. 9 . Cf. I/A Court H.R., matter of the Brothers Dante, Jorge and José Peirano Basso, regarding Uruguay, letter of the Judges A.A. Cançado Trindade and M.E. Ventura Robles to the President of the Court, of 07.07.2006, doc. CDH-S/1181, pp. 1-2; matter of Loretta Ortiz Ahlf et al. Mexican Citizens, regarding Mexico, letter of Judge A.A. Cançado Trindade to the President of the Court, of 09.19.2006, doc. I/A Court H.R., /1641, p. 1. 10 . Cf. A.A. Cançado Trindade, “Bases for a Draft Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights to Strengthen Its Mechanism for Protection, vol. II, 2a. ed., San José de Costa Rica, Inter-American Court of Human Rights, 2003, pp. 1-1015. 11