human rights, but rather precisely the contrary. Indeed, what I have indicated here responds to a profound certainty that effective respect for human rights is achieved if the States Parties to the Convention are required to comply with what they truly, freely and sovereignly, undertook to fulfill.28 In this regard, legal certainty plays a fundamental role and, consequently, cannot be understood to limit or restrict the development of human rights, but rather as an instrument that offers the best possible guarantee for their effective respect or, if they have been violated, for their earliest possible restoration by the corresponding State. 29 The purpose, therefore, is not only to deliver judgments that are solidly substantiated and that develop human rights, but above all, when those rights have been violated, to ensure that the State concerned re-establishes them as soon as possible. 18. Moreover, the issue of separate opinions – which may at times lead to misunderstandings and even differences or disapproval – not only constitutes the exercise of a right but, fundamentally, compliance with a duty, which is to contribute to a better understanding of the function assigned to the Court. 30 In addition, separate opinions may even relate to the exercise of the right to freedom of thought and expression recognized in the Convention.31 28 Supra, footnotes 18 and 23. Art. 33: “The following organs shall have competence with respect to matters relating to the fulfillment of the commitments made by the States Parties to this Convention: a. the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, referred to as "The Commission;" and b. the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, referred to as "The Court." 29 Supra, footnote 15. Art. 66(2): “If the judgment does not represent in whole or in part the unanimous opinion of the judges, any judge shall be entitled to have his dissenting or separate opinion attached to the judgment.” 30 Art. 24(3) of the Statute of the Court: “The decisions, judgments and opinions of the Court shall be delivered in public session, and the parties shall be given written notification thereof. In addition, the decisions, judgments and opinions shall be published, along with judges' individual votes and opinions and with such other data or background information that the Court may deem appropriate.” Art. 32(1)(a) of the Rules of Procedure: The Court shall make public: its judgments, orders, opinions, and other decisions, including separate opinions, dissenting or concurring, whenever they fulfill the requirements set forth in Article 65(2) of these Rules.” Art. 65(2) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure: “Any judge who has taken part in the consideration of a case is entitled to append a separate reasoned opinion to the judgment, concurring or dissenting. These opinions shall be submitted within a time limit to be fixed by the President so that the other Judges may take cognizance thereof before notice of the judgment is served. Said opinions shall only refer to the issues covered in the judgment.” Art. 13: “Freedom of Thought and Expression. 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought and expression. This right includes freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing, in print, in the form of art, or through any other medium of one's choice. 31 2. The exercise of the right provided for in the foregoing paragraph shall not be subject to prior censorship but shall be subject to subsequent imposition of liability, which shall be expressly established by law to the extent necessary to ensure: a. respect for the rights or reputations of others; or b. the protection of national security, public order, or public health or morals. 3. The right of expression may not be restricted by indirect methods or means, such as the abuse of government or private controls over newsprint, radio broadcasting frequencies, or equipment used in the dissemination of information, or by any other means tending to impede the communication and circulation of ideas and opinions. 4. Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph 2 above, public entertainments may be subject by law to prior censorship for the sole purpose of regulating access to them for the moral protection of childhood and adolescence. 5. Any propaganda for war and any advocacy of national, racial, or religious hatred that constitute incitements to lawless violence or to any other similar action against any person or group of persons on any grounds including those of race, color, religion, language, or national origin shall be considered as offenses punishable by law.” 6