103. It is also essential to repeat that, if the Court persists in the direction adopted by this judgment, the inter-American system of human rights as a whole could be seriously constrained. And this is because very probably, on the one hand, it would not provide an incentive, but rather the contrary, for the adhesion to the Convention of new States, or the acceptance of the Court’s contentious jurisdiction by those who have not done so and, on the other hand, the tendency of the States Parties to the Convention not to comply fully and promptly with its rulings could be renewed or even increased. In sum, it would weaken the principles of legal security and certainty, which, in the case of human rights, also benefit the victims of their violation by ensuring compliance with the Court’s judgments because they are solidly based on the undertakings sovereignly made by the States. 104. Regarding the last point, it should be recalled that, in practice and over and above any theoretical consideration, the Court’s function is, in particular, to deliver judgments that reestablish as soon as possible respect for the human rights violated in any specific case. It is not so sure that this is achieved with regard to violations of rights that were not considered justiciable before the Court in the Convention, or when, rather than trying to decide the case submitted to it, it would appear that the main concern has been to establish norms, rules or standards of general application and not to specifically deliver judgment in a case and that, based on this and on several judgments delivered in the same sense or in the same direction, case law is consequently developed composed of several similar precedents. Eduardo Vio Grossi Judge Pablo Saavedra Alessandri Secretary 27