6. The function of the Court is, let me repeat, to rule interpreting and applying the Convention; in other words, determining the meaning and scope of its provisions – that, since to some extent they may be perceived as obscure or uncertain, may be subject to several possible applications – and endeavoring to ensure that this results in the effective protection of human rights and, if these have been violated, their prompt restoration. 15 7. Evidently, to fulfill this mission, the Court does not have the authority to adjudicate outside or disregarding the law expressed, as far as the Court is concerned, in the Convention. In this regard, it is necessary to respect the principle of public law that authorities may only act within the law, so that, whatever is not regulated, is governed by the internal, domestic and exclusive jurisdiction of the State in question.16 8. Also, and for the same reason, the Court must, on the one hand, proceed only in accordance with what the Convention effectively establishes and not what it would like it to establish and, on the other hand, avoid modifying it, a power assigned expressly to its States Parties.17 Consequently, if the Court does not agree with what a provision of the Convention establishes, it should not exercise the international normative function that falls within the competence of the States, but rather advise them of the need to amend the provision in question. Thus, the new provision that eventually arises from the exercise of the said function by the States would clearly enjoy a more solid and widespread democratic legitimacy. 9. In this regard, it should also be indicated that this opinion responds to the circumstance that the Court, as a judicial organ, enjoys extensive autonomy in its work, since there is no higher entity that is able to control its actions,18 a characteristic that imposes on it the imperative of being extremely rigorous in the exercise of its jurisdiction in order not to denature this and, consequently, so as not to weaken the inter-American system for the protection of human rights. This is why the thesis argued in this text seeks, among other purposes, the broadest possible recognition of the Court by all those who appear before it, Art. 63(1): “If the Court finds that there has been a violation of a right or freedom protected by this Convention, the Court shall rule that the injured party be ensured the enjoyment of his right or freedom that was violated. It shall also rule, if appropriate, that the consequences of the measure or situation that constituted the breach of such right or freedom be remedied and that fair compensation be paid to the injured party.” 15 “The question whether a certain matter is or is not solely within the jurisdiction of a State is an essentially relative question; it depends upon the development of international relations. Thus, in the present state of international law, questions of nationality are, in the opinion of the Court, in principle within this reserved domain.” Permanent Court of International Justice, Advisory Opinion on Nationality Decrees issued in Tunisia and Morocco (French zone), Series B No. 4, p.24. 16 Protocol No. 15 amending the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, “Art.1: At the end of the preamble to the Convention, a new recital shall be added, which shall read as follows: “Affirming that the High Contracting Parties, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, have the primary responsibility to secure the rights and freedoms defined in this Convention and the Protocols thereto, and that in doing so they enjoy a margin of appreciation, subject to the supervisory jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights established by this Convention.” Art. 31: “Recognition of Other Rights. Other rights and freedoms recognized in accordance with the procedures established in Articles 76 and 77 may be included in the system of protection of this Convention.” 17 Art. 76(1):” Proposals to amend this Convention may be submitted to the General Assembly for the action it deems appropriate by any State Party directly, and by the Commission or the Court through the Secretary General.” Art. 77(1): “In accordance with Article 31, any State Party and the Commission may submit proposed protocols to this Convention for consideration by the States Parties at the General Assembly with a view to gradually including other rights and freedoms within its system of protection.” Art. 67: “The judgment of the Court shall be final and not subject to appeal. In case of disagreement as to the meaning or scope of the judgment, the Court shall interpret it at the request of any of the parties, provided the request is made within ninety days from the date of notification of the judgment.” 18 3