11 Regarding to previously approved treaties, it creates an imbroglio that statecentered publicists -insensitive to the needs of protection of the human being- like so much; with regard to the treaties yet to be approved, it creates a possibility of differentiation that autistic and short-sighted publicists -so little acquainted with the achievements of International Human Rights Law – like so much, as well as the representatives that pay attention to them. 31. This backward step creates a risk to the interrelation or indivisibility of the rights protected by the respondent Government (provided for in the treaties that bind it), threatening them with fragmentation or atomization, in favor of the excess of a legal formalism and inscrutability tainted by obscurantism. The new provision is seen with complacence and sympathy by the so called "internationalist constitutionalists," who claim to be jusinternationalists when in fact they are not even close to that, as they only conceive the international legal system through the national Constitution. The constitutionality of the regrettable paragraph 3 of Article 5 is not even proved, and my intention here is not to express an opinion on the matter; what I do affirm in this Opinion, -just as I supported in the conference I lectured on March 31, 2006 in the crowded auditorium of the Superior Tribunal de Justiça (STJ) in Brasilia, at the end of the public hearings before this Court which took place at the historical External Session of the said Court recently held in Brazil, - is that, as long as the new paragraph 3 of Article 5 of the Brazilian Federal Constitution opens the possibility of undue restrictions in the direct applicability of the set of provisions for the protection of certain human rights treaties in the Brazilian domestic law (being even capable of turning it inapplicable), it openly proves incompatibility with the American Convention on Human Rights (Articles 1(1), 2 e 29). 32. From the International Human Rights Law perspective in general, and the provisions of the American Convention in particular, the new paragraph 3 of Article 5 of the Brazilian Federal Constitution is nothing but a regrettable legal aberration. The serious backwards step that it represents, once more reveals that the struggle to safeguard human rights at national and international level is never-ending, as in the constant restart immortalized by the myth of Sisyphus. When descending the mountain to push the rock upward again, we become aware of the human condition and of the tragedy surrounding it (as illustrated by the stories of Electra and Irene Ximenes-Lopes Miranda). 33. But the struggle has to continue, so that public justice reacts immediately and ex officio against the commission of the crime and against victimization, and not encouraged by apparent disgust or hardly by the impulse of the victims´ next of kin. The struggle has to continue, because, honestly, there is no choice: "Sisyphe, revenant vers son rocher, contemple cette suite d'actions sans lien qui devient son destin, créé par lui, uni sous le regard de sa mémoire et bientôt scellé par sa mort. (...) Sisyphe enseigne la fidélité supérieure qui (...) soulève les rochers. (...) La lutte elle-même vers les sommets suffit à remplir un coeur d'homme. Il faut imaginer Sisyphe heureux."32 Cinco Décadas, 2nd. ed., Brasília, Edit. Universidade de Brasília (Ed. Humanidades), 2000, pp. 1-214; G.R. Bandeira Galindo, Tratados Internacionais de Direitos Humanos e Constituição Brasileira, Belo Horizonte, Edit. Del Rey, 2002; Sílvia M. da Silveira Loureiro, Tratados Internacionais sobre Direitos Humanos na Constituição, Belo Horizonte, Edit. Del Rey, 2005. 32 . A. Camus, Le mythe de Sisyphe, Paris, Gallimard, 1942, p. 168.