2 that the respondent Government may freely withdraw that waiver in the subsequent procedure before the Court (estoppel/forclusion). 6. The grounds of my position, which I reiterate here with conviction, are expounded in detail in my Separate Opinion in the Judgment of the Court of 4 December 1991, in the Gangaram Panday case (Preliminary Objections). There is no need to repeat them here ipsis literis, but rather to single out and develop some aspects which I deem especially relevant in relation to the present case of Castillo Páez. 7. Just as the Commission’s decisions on the inadmissibility of petitions or communications are considered definitive and non-appealable, its decisions of admissibility should be treated likewise, also considered definitive and unsusceptible to reopening by the respondent Government in the subsequent procedure before the Court. Why is it that the respondent Government is allowed to attempt to reopen a decision on admissibility by the Commission before the Court and an individual complainant does not have the same faculty to question a decision on inadmissibility of the Commission before the Court? 8. Such reopening of review by the Court of a decision on admissibility by the Commission creates an imbalance between the parties, in favor of the respondent governments (all the more so since individuals currently do not even have locus standi before the Court). This being so, the decisions of inadmissibility by the Commission should also be allowed to be reopened by the alleged victims and submitted to the Court. Either all decisions -of admissibility or not- of the Commission are allowed to be reopened before the Court, or they are all kept exclusive to the Commission. 9. This understanding is the one that is best suited to the basic notion of collective guarantee underlying the American Convention on Human Rights, as well as all treaties of international protection of human rights. Instead of reviewing the decisions on admissibility by the Commission, the Court should be able to concentrate more on the examination of questions of substance in order to fulfill with more speed and security its role of interpreting and applying of the American Convention, determining the occurrence or not of violations of the Convention and its juridical consequences. The Court is not, in my view, a tribunal of appeals of decisions of the Commission on admissibility. 10. The alleged reopening of questions of pure admissibility before the Court surrounds the process with uncertainties, prejudicial to both parties. It further generates the possibility of divergent or conflicting decisions on the matter by the Commission and the Court, thus fragmenting the unity inherent in a decision of admissibility. This in no way contributes to the perfecting of the system of guarantees of the American Convention. The principal concern of both the Court and the Commission should lie, not in the zealous internal distribution of attributions and competences in the jurisdictional mechanism of the American Convention, but rather in the adequate coordination between the two organs of international supervision so as to assure the most effective protection possible of the guaranteed human rights. 11. In the instant case of Castillo Páez, the Commission had pointed out the prior exhaustion of domestic remedies and declared the petition or communication admissible (case No. 10.733, Report 19/94, of 26 September 1994, pp. 13 and 24). As the dossier of the case reveals3 and the public hearing before the Court of 23 September 1995 confirms, 3 E.g., writings of the Government of 3 October 1991, 3 January 1995, and 15 March 1995; writings of the Commission of 27 April 1995 and 28 April 1995.