DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE EDUARDO VIO GROSSI REGARDING THE ORDER OF THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS OF NOVEMBER 25, 2011, ON PROVISIONAL MEASURES, MATTER OF MILLACURA LLAIPÉN REGARDING ARGENTINA. The undersigned issues this opinion in dissent to the order indicated in the header (hereinafter the Order) in light of the fact that, having already issued the "definitive and inappealable ruling"1 that has effectively put an end to the case in which the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (hereinafter the Court), while “hearing” it,2 adopted the provisional measures to which this Order refers. The Court’s jurisdiction with regard to the provisional measures ha expired, and it now corresponds to the Court only to "supervise" compliance with the ruling.3 According to this reasoning, and on finding that the measures must extend beyond the ruling, what followed was to order in the judgment that the State was obligated to guarantee "to the injured party the enjoyment of the right or liberty violated."4 Logically, this also implies an obligation to adopt the measures pertinent to "prevent irreparable damage to persons"5 related with the case in question, a case which has been resolved and therefore is no longer "before" the Court. In this way, the measures would have been included in the aforementioned "definitive and inappealable ruling," in which case they would not only share their obligatory nature but in addition, compliance with them could have been monitored as part of monitoring of compliance and not, consequently, as if the case had not been definitively concluded or as if what was at issue were a separate and autonomous proceeding. The more detailed basis for this position, which argues that the Court’s strict respect for the rules that govern it is a sine qua non requirement for safeguarding human rights, is found both in the Dissenting Opinions on the same issue that the undersigned issued on July 15, 2011, with regard to the Orders of the Court related to "Provisional Measures with regard to the Republic of Colombia, case of Gutiérrez Soler v. Colombia” of June 30, 2011; “Provisional Measures regarding the United Mexican States, Case of Rosendo Cantú et al. v. Mexico” of July 1, 2011; and “Provisional Measures regarding the Republic of Honduras, Case of Kawas Fernández 1 Article 67 of the American Convention on Human Rights.    2 Article 63(2), idem.    3 Article  69  of  the  Rules  of  Procedure  of  the  Court.  See  the  concurring  opinions  of  the  undersigned  to  orders  on  Compliance with Judgments in the cases of Blanco Romero et al. v. Venezuela, Servellón Garcìa et al. v. Honduras and  Saramaka v. Suriname, of November of 2011.     4 Article 63(1) of the Convention.    5  Art. 63(2), idem.