CONCURRING OPINION OF JUDGE A.A. CANÇADO TRINDADE 1. I vote in favour of the present Resolution of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on Provisional Measures in respect of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago. In the few hours that the Court disposed of, in order to decide on the subject, having examined all the documents submitted so far to its consideration, it has reached a decision which, in my understanding, contributes to the fulfilment of the object and purpose of the American Convention on Human Rights in the context of the present matter, which preserves the integrity of the mechanism of supervision of the American Convention, and which reflects the juridical nature of the provisional measures of protection, complying with the basic and indispensable requisite of juridical security. Under the merciless pressure of time, I proceed to indicate the juridical foundations of my position on the matter, in respect of the jurisdictional as well as the substantive levels of the subject under examination. 1. Jurisdictional Level. 2. Article 63(2) of the American Convention determines that "IN CASES OF EXTREME GRAVITY AND URGENCY, AND WHENNECESSARY TO AVOID IRREPARABLE DAMAGE TO PERSONS, THE COURT SHALL ADOPT SUCH PROVISIONAL MEASURES AS IT DEEMS PERTINENT IN MATTERS IT HAS UNDER CONSIDERATION. WITH RESPECT TO A CASE NOT YET SUBMITTED TO THE COURT, IT MAY ACT AT THE REQUEST OF THE COMMISSION". Article 25(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court sets forth the elements provided for in Article 63(2) of the Convention, namely, the extreme gravity and urgency, and the prevention of irreparable damage to persons. 3. The present matter (James and Others case) fits into the second category of cases contemplated in Article 63(2) of the American Convention: at the moment of being submitted to the Court by the Commission, the subject was under consideration of this latter, and not of the Court. As from the moment in which it received the Commission's request for provisional measures, the subject fell under the jurisdiction of the Court. The fact that, subsequent to its request, the Commission came to adopt, in the specific case pertaining to Mr. Anthony Briggs, the Reports under Articles 50 and 51, respectively, of the American Convention, does not mean that the examination of the case is already concluded under the inter-American system of protection of human rights. 4. Its examination is concluded by the Commission, but it continues under the jurisdiction of the Court, as the supreme organ of interpretation and application of the American Convention. This understanding finds support in the Court's Resolution on Provisional Measures of 29.08.1998 in the James and Others case, whereby the Court decided to order Trinidad and Tobago to take "all measures necessary to preserve the life and physical integrity" of, inter alii, Anthony Briggs, so as "not to hinder the processing of their cases before the inter-American system" (resolutory point n. 2). The Court did not have in mind only the procedure before the Commission; in referring to the procedure before the inter-American system, it could not fail to take into account the consideration of the subject also by the Court itself. In sum, although concluded the examination of the case of Mr. Anthony Briggs by the Commission, the subject remains pending before the Court.