- 18individuals under their respective jurisdictions and if we proceed with the same logic as the inter-State litigation before the ICJ, we will be depriving those individuals of the protection to which they have a right under the American Convention. 64. By virtue of the principle ut res magis valeat quam pereat, which corresponds to the so-called effet utile (sometimes called the effectiveness principle), which has wide support in case law, the States Parties to human rights treaties must ensure that treaty provisions have the appropriate effects within their respective domestic legal systems. I consider that this principle applies not only to the substantive norms of human rights treaties (i.e. those concerning the protected rights), but also to the procedural norms, particularly those referring to the right of individual international petition and the acceptance of the jurisdiction of the international judicial organs of protection on contentious matters – namely, the fundamental clauses (cláusulas pétreas) of the international protection of human rights. 65. These treaty-based norms, which are essential to the effectiveness of the international protection system as a whole, must be interpreted and applied so that their safeguards are truly practical and effective, taking into account the special nature of human rights treaties and their implementation through the collective guarantee. We are privileged to be part of the gratifying historical process of the emancipation of the individual vis-à-vis the State and we must act in conformity with this exalted mission. 66. We have to go beyond the mere resolution of specific cases and reveal the nature of law and, imbued with this spirit, indicate how the protection system can evolve to respond to the individual’s growing and changing needs for protection. A case such as this one would have been a unique opportunity for the Court to do this; since, it has not done so, I will record my personal observations in this dissenting opinion, in the hope that perhaps they will serve for something more than my imagined dialogue with myself. V. Epilogue: The time factor and law, the eternal challenge 67. I could not conclude this dissenting opinion in the instant case without referring to my final concern. Time, or more precisely the passage of time, is the greatest enigma of human existence. It has occupied human thought throughout history. It is surrounded by mystery, which has prompted the successive intellectuals who have approached it at very different historical moments to search for a meaning with eloquent forms of expression – as exemplified by the penetrating words in this regard of, for example, Plato in his Dialogues, Seneca in his Letters to Lucilius, Saint Augustine in his Confessions, Marcel Proust in his À la recherche du temps perdu, and Jorge Luis Borges in his Historia de la Eternidad and his Elogio de la Sombra. However, I suspect that no one can say with certainty how he has learned to deal with the passage of time. 68. We know, for example, that chronological time is not biological time, that biological time is not psychological time, that digital time is not existential time. We also know that time is different for each age, that the time of children (who live in the moment) is not the time of adults (who live each day), and that the time of adults is not the time of the elderly (who live their life history). We know that time, which gives children their innocence, ends up allowing the elderly the profit from the lessons of their own existence. But, who can say with any certainty that he knows how to come to terms with the passage of time?