133. In its constant jurisprudence, the Inter-American Court, in relation to the realm of the domestic law of the States Parties to the American Convention, has correctly assumed the definition lato sensu of the right to a fair trial, when it has mentioned the intimate correlationship between the right to an effective recourse (Article 25) and the guarantees of the due process of law (Article 8). With regard to the international realm, the right to make an individual petition, conceived with the most ample liberality (Article 44) has proven to be an effective means of solving not only individual cases, but also cases of massive and systematic violations to human rights.112 134. More than twelve years ago, in the Judgments of the Court on preliminary objections in the cases of Castillo Páez and Loayza Tamayo (of 01.30.1996 and 01.31.1996, respectively) regarding Peru, I stated, in my Concurring Opinions, the arguments in support to the granting of the locus standi in judicio to the petitioners in all the stages of the proceedings before the Court (paras. 14-17). Said arguments were taken into account for the introduction of the historic changes made by Article 23 of the third, and fourth, and current, Rules of Procedure of the Court (of 1996 and 2000). In my extensive Concurring Opinion in the Court’s Judgment (on preliminary objections in the case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. versus Peru (of 09.04.1998), I pointed out the fundamental nature of the right to an individual international petition (Article 44) (paras. 3 and 36-38), as a “historical rescue” of the individual’s position as a subject of International Human Rights Law, endowed with full international procedural capacity (paras. 5 and 12). 135. Likewise, I revised the historia juris of said right to petition (paras. 9-15), and I mentioned the expansion of the notion of “victim” in the jurisprudence under human rights treaties (paras. 16-19), as well as referring to the autonomy of the right of individual international petition vis-à-vis the domestic law of the States (paras. 21, 27, and 29). And I warned that, if it were not for the exercise of this right, justice would not have been done in many cases of grave violations (paras. 33 and 35). 136. Actually, the right to a fair trial is an imperative both in the international and national realm. There is currently a convergence between international law and domestic public law, which turns the approaches of the past based on the static vision of “subsidiarity” of the international legal system into anachronistic ones. A quarter of a century ago, I allowed myself to state that, from the perspective of the people protected, the effective domestic recourses (v.g., Article 25 of the American Convention) are part of the international protection of human rights.113 137. The granting of the locus standi in judicio to individuals before the Inter-American Court was announced by Article 23 of the third Rules of Procedures of the Court (adopted on 09.16.1996 and in force as of 01.01.1997), granted only in the reparations stage. The decisive step and great qualitative leap occurred with the adoption of the fourth and current Rules of Procedure of the Court (of 11.24.2000, in force as of 06.01.2001, up to this date). The new Rules of Procedure granted an active legal standing or a direct participation (locus standi in judicio) to individual petitioners (the alleged victims, their . A.A. Cançado Trindade, "The Right of Access to Justice in the Inter-American System of Human Rights Protection", in Italian Yearbook of International Law (2007) (in press). 112 . A.A. Cançado Trindade, The Application of the Rule of Exhaustion of Local Remedies in International Law, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1983, pp. 1-445. 113 40