SEPARATE CONCURRING OPINION OF JUDGES ALIRIO ABREU-BURELLI AND SERGIO GARCÍA-RAMÍREZ 1. The provisional measures provided under Article 63(1) of the American Convention constitute a fundamental element for the effective protection of human rights. Therefore, the Convention itself has established the possibility of the Court to adopt said measures not only in the process developed before it, but also in case the dispute has not been filed in the Court. The need to provide adequate and prompt protection to people justifies the jurisdictional performance of the Court, at the request of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. 2. The justified interest in preserving rights determines that the Convention requires only certain objective conditions for the adoption of measures: that there are extreme seriousness and urgency in the case, which has to do with the characteristics of the fear affectation (possible harm relevant to fundamental rights) and its imminence. The above mentioned Article 63(1) does not stipulate other requirements that may delay or obstruct the issuance of such measures, and therefore, to risk the human rights that are intended to protect. 3. It is true that in most cases it is possible to identify, individually, the potential victims of the violations that is intended to impede. However, there are other assumptions where said precise individualization is difficult, at least for the time being. Think, for example, of the hypotheses where the real imminent threat is on an extensive number of individuals that are under a given common situation or assumption that exposes them to risk. Under said circumstances it is necessary to provide the protection of the rights that are at risk, although at the moment it is not possible to nominally identify all the subjects of the provisional protection, which is always, by definition, an urgent protection. 4. In some way, that situation corresponds with the one presented under the concept of diffuse interests: a plurality of individuals share a determined interest that is juridically relevant and that requires public protection, although none of the subjects may be considered as holder of a subjective right about the rendering or the measure that is sought or the legal framework that is relied upon, or that said entitlement may not be attributed in way excluding the other subjects that are in the same situation. Under these circumstances, any of them may appear before the corresponding organ and request the adoption of provisions or decisions that preserve the common interest. In such case, an actio popularis or a class action would work, in keeping with the characteristics reviewed in this matter in the specific proposed circumstances. 5. In a prior decision, the Court considered “indispensable to individualize the people that are in danger of suffering irreparable harm, for which it is not feasible— the Court added—order the provisional measures in a non-nominal way, in order to protect generally all those who are in a determined situation, or are affected by certain measures; however, it is possible to protect the individualized members of a community” (Provisional measures requested by the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights regarding the Dominican Republic. Case on Haitians and Dominicans of Haitian origin in the Dominican Republic. Decision of August 18, 2000, eighth considering paragraph; cf., additionally, the Concurring Opinion of Judge A.A. Cançado on this same matter).