7 27. I concur, of course, in the need for behavior in the proceeding to be in accordance with its object and purpose. Otherwise, this juridical channel would be subverted, altering its nature and compromising its intent. The process does not fulfill its purpose “when its objective of ensuring ample debate in which the court can provide a fair solution is obstructed, altered, or hindered. The telesis of the proceeding is affected by the lack of good faith or integrity in actions,” which is injurious to the guarantee of judicial protection of rights (“Relatorio geral latinoamericano. Abuso de los derechos procesales en América Latina”, in Barbosa Moreira, José Carlos (coord.,), Abuso dos direitos processuais, Instituto IberoAmericano de Direito Processual, Instituto Iberoamericano de Derecho Procesal/Ed. Forense, Rio de Janeiro, 2000, p. 31). 28. The legislative body must regulate the proceeding and the judge must conduct it in such a manner that it will serve the objective for which it was developed. None of this involves restricting the legitimate use of the means authorized by law for legal defense. There must be no judicial authoritarianism, and it is not appropriate to obstruct defense of an indictee, with the aim of accelerating the trial, if this is detrimental to the rights of those involved in it and, ultimately, to justice itself. I believe that the statements made by the Court, and which I of course endorse, refer to the facts of the case being examined, and do not intend to make a general statement on all actions by defense counsel and judicial practices. The Judgment to which this Opinion is attached addresses the issue of extinguishment as a domestic obstacle to compliance with obligations issuing from the international order and accepted by the States signatory to the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (Article 27) and the American Convention. I have referred several times to these domestic obstacles, apropos of “self-amnesties” and extinguishment. I examine the latter hypothetical situation in my Separate concurring opinion to the Order on compliance with judgment, issued by the InterAmerican Court on the 9th of this month, in the Benavides Cevallos Case. I therefore refer to what I have stated in that Opinion. Sergio García-Ramírez Judge Manuel E. Ventura-Robles Secretary