due process of law, the right to a fair trial, reparations (as long as they are due), and the faithful and full execution of judgments. 140. According to the jurisprudence constante of the Court up to this date, the American Convention not only requires a formal right to a fair trial within domestic law (the right to an effective recourse under Article 25), but also in the realization itself of material justice. With this purpose in mind, the Convention determines the faithful observance of the right to a fair trial (Article 8), the latter taken lato sensu, covering the totality of the procedural requirements that must be observed so that all individuals can defend themselves adequately from any act arising from the State’s power that may affect their rights. 141. As I recalled in my extensive Concurring Opinion (paras. 35-43) in the case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre, regarding Colombia (Judgment of 01.31.2006), the Court has, up to this date, consistently related judicial protection (Article 25) with the right to a fair trial (Article 8).105 This continues to be its position up to this date, August 02, 2008, of adoption of the present Judgment of Interpretation in the case of the Castro Castro Prison. This is an area that does not allow backward steps; in the event that these occur in the future, those responsible for possible backward steps will have to respond for their unfounded alterations to the history of the Inter-American human rights protection system. 142. Moved by this concern – maybe a little ambitious – to avoid backward steps, I allow myself to once more warn here that the current Rules of Procedure of the Court, by granting direct access of the individual petitioners to the Inter-American Court – in the form of locus standi, to be followed by the jus standi106 - is part of an improvement and strengthening process of the protection mechanism under the American Convention. The next step in this line of evolution must consist, as I have been stating for many years, in a Protocol of Reforms to the American Convention on . Cf., in this sense, its Judgments in the cases of Barrios Altos versus Peru (of 03.14.2001, paras. 47-49), Las Palmeras versus Colombia (0f 12.06.2001, paras. 4866), Baena Ricardo et al. versus Panama (of 02.02.2001, paras. 119-143), Myrna Mack Chang versus Guatemala (of 11.25.2003, paras. 162-218), Maritza Urrutia versus Guatemala (of 11.27.2003, paras. 107-130), 19 Tradesmen versus Colombia (of 07.05.2004, paras. 159-206), Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers versus Peru (of 07.08.2004, paras. 137-156), Serrano Cruz Sisters versus El Salvador (of 03.01.2005, paras. 52-107), Caesar versus Trinidad and Tobago (of 03.11.2005, paras. 103-117), Moiwana Community versus Suriname (of 06.15.2005, paras. 139167), Yakye Axa Indigenous Community versus Paraguay (of 06.17.2005, paras. 55119), Fermín Ramírez versus Guatemala (of 06.20.2005, paras. 58-83), Yatama versus Paraguay (of 06.23.2005, paras. 145-177), The Girls Yean and Bosico versus Dominican Republic (of 09.08.2005, para. 201), the Mapiripán Massacre versus Colombia (of 09.15.2005, para. 193-241), Gómez Palomino versus Peru (of 11.22.2005, paras. 72-86), Palamara Iribarne versus Chile (of 11.22.2005, paras. 120-189). The same position has been assumed by the Court in its Judgments in the case itself of the Pueblo Bello Massacre versus Colombia (of 01.31.2006), as well as in the cases of López Álvarez versus Honduras (of 02.01.2006), of the Ituango Massacres versus Colombia (of 07.01.2006), and of Ximenes Lopes versus Brazil (of 07.04.2006). 105 . Cf., in this regard, A.A. Cançado Trindade, El Acceso Directo del Individuo a los Tribunales Internacionales de Derechos Humanos, Bilbao, Universidad de Deusto, 2001, pp. 9-104. 106