4 13. I would like to conclude this Concurring Vote in a positive tone, if possible. In its substantiation of the determination of the violation of Article 8(2) of the Convention (judicial guarantees), in conjunction with Article 1(1) of the same, in the instant case, the Court considered that Mr. R. Acosta Calderón, “as a foreign detainee, was not notified of his right to communicate with a consular official from his country with the objective of offering the assistance recognized in Article 36(1)(b) of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relationships. The foreign detainee, when arrested and before offering his first statement before the authorities, must be notified of his right to establish contact with a third party, for example, a family member, a lawyer, or a consular official, as corresponds, to inform them that he is in the State’s custody. In the case of the consular notice, the Court has stated that the consul may assist the detainee in different acts of defense, such as the granting or hiring of legal representation, the obtainment of evidence in the country of origin, the verification of the conditions in which the legal assistance is exercised, and the observation of the defendant’s situation while he is imprisoned. In this sense, the Court has also affirmed that the individual right to request consular assistance from his country of nationality must be recognized and considered within the framework of the minimum guarantees to offer foreigners the opportunity to adequately prepare their defense and have a fair trial. The non-observance of this right affected Mr. Acosta Calderón’s right to defense, which forms part of the guarantees of the due legal process” (para. 125). 14. Accordingly, the right to information on consular assistance is an individual right, the Court has based its correct deliberation in this regard on its previous and truly pioneering Advisory Opinion No. 16, on the Right to Information on Consular Assistance in the Framework of the Guarantee of the Due Process of Law (1999, paras. 106, 86, and 122). This Advisory Opinion, adopted by the Court on October 01, 1999, has acted as a source of inspiration for international jurisprudence in statu nascendi regarding this matter, - as has been acknowledged in great length by contemporary judicial doctrine.5 5 For example, the specialized bibliography, when referring to the later decision of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), of 06.27.2001, in the case of LaGrand stated that it was issued “a la lumière notamment de l’avis de la Cour Interaméricaine des Droits de l’Homme du 1er octobre 1999;” G. Cohen-Jonathan, “Cour Européenne des Droits de l’Homme et droit international général (2000),” 46 Annuaire français de Droit international (2000) p. 642. It has also been observed, in relation to Advisory Opinion n. 16 of the Inter-American Court, “le soin mis par la Cour a démontrer que son approche est conforme au droit international”. Besides, “pour la juridiction régionale il n’est donc pas question de reconnaître a la Cour de la Haye une prééminence