16 admitted, nor is any discriminatory treatment for the prejudice of anyone (...). (...) Non-compliance of these obligations generates the international liability of the State, and this is much more serious as that non-compliance violates peremptory provisions of International Human Rights Law" (paras. 100-101 and 106). 45. Regarding this item, I issued, in the above mentioned Consultative Opinion No. 18, a long Concurring Opinion (paras. 1-89), in defense of the broadening of the jus cogens material content and the wide scope of the corresponding erga omnes protection obligations. That has invariably been my position in the core of this Court, as proved by my Separate Opinions in the cases of Massacre de Mapiripán v. Colombia (Judgment of September 15, 2005, paras. 25-29 of the Opinion), Acosta Calderón v. Equador (Judgment of June 24, 2005, para. 7 of the Opinion), Yatama v. Nicaragua (Judgment of June 23, 2005, paras. 6-8 of the Opinion), Comunidade Moiwana v. Suriname (Judgment of June 15, 2005, para. 30 of the Opinion), Caesar v. Trinidad e Tobago (Judgment of March 11, 2005, paras. 85-92 of the Opinion), Massacre de Plan de Sánchez v. Guatemala (merits, Judgment of April, 2004, paras. 29-33 of the Opinion; and reparations, Judgment of November 19, 2004, para. 5-6 of the Opinion), Tibi v. Equador (Judgment of September 7, 2004, paras. 26-35 of the Opinion), Irmãos Gómez Paquiyauri v. Peru (Judgment of July 8, 2004, paras. 37-44 of the Opinion), Myrna Mack Chang v. Guatemala (Judgment of November 25, 2003, para. 29 of the Opinion), Hilaire, Constantine e Benjamin e Outros v. Trinidad e Tobago (preliminary objections, Judgment of September 1, 2001, para. 38 of the Opinions; and merit, Judgment of June 21, 2002, para. 16 of the Opinion), Trujillo Oroza v. Bolívia (Judgment of February 27, 2002, para. 18 of the Opinion), "Meninos de Rua" (Villagrán Morales e Outros) v. Guatemala (reparations, Judgment of May 26, 2001, para. 36 of the Opinion), Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala (Judgment of November 25, 2000, para. 27 of the Opinion), Las Palmeras v. Colômbia (preliminary objections, Judgment of February 4, 2000, para. 6 of the Opinion); and Blake v. Guatemala (preliminary objections, Judgment of July 2, 1996, paras. 11 and 14 of the Opinion; and merit, Judgment of January 24, 1998, paras. 23-30 of the Opinion; and reparations, Judgment of January 22, 1999, para. 39-42 of the Opinion); and, apart from that, as corroborated in my Concurring Opinions in the cases Maritza Urrutia v. Guatemala (Judgment of November 27, 2003, paras. 5-10 of the Opinion), Barrios Altos v. Peru (Judgment of March 14, 2001, para. 11 of the Opinion), and by my Dissenting Opinion in the case of Irmãs Serrano Cruz v. El Salvador (preliminary objections, Judgment of November 23, 2004, paras. 32 and 39-43), plus many other Opinions by myself in precautionary protection ordered by this Court. 200 46. Therefore, I believe that the Court could and should have taken the arguments of its most advanced jurisprudence for the matter at issue when analyzing this Judgment in the case of Ximenes-Lopes. Perhaps it would have done so had it given itself more time for discussion. As stated by the renown adage, you . Cases of Crianças e Adolescentes Privados de Liberdade no Complexo do Tatuapé da FEBEM v. Brasil (of November 30, 2005, paras. 24-26 of my Concurring Opinion); Prisões de Mendoza v. Argentina (of June 18, 2005, paras. 7-20 of my Concurring Opinion); Povo Indígena de Sarayaku v. Equador (of July 6, 2004, para. 8 of my Concurring Opinion; and of June 17, 2005, paras. 20-26 of my Concurring Opinion); Comunidades do Jiguamiandó e do Curbaradó v. Colômbia (of March 15, 2005, paras. 8-10 of my Concurring Opinion); Comunidade de Paz de San José de Apartadó v. Colômbia (of March 15, 2005, paras. 8-10 of my Concurring Opinion); Emissora de Televisão `Globovisión' vs. Venezuela (of September 4, para. 13 of my Concurring Opinion); Prisão de Urso Branco vs. Brasil (of July 7, 2004, para. 8 of my Concurring Opinion); and Povo Indígena Kankuamo v. Colômbia (of July 5, 2004, para. 10 of my Concurring Opinion). 200