6 19. Thus, given a violation of provisional measures of protection ordered by this Court, said violation adds to the alleged violations that have given rise to the concrete case on the merits. The cases of provisional measures of protection — brought before this Court— in favor of persons deprived of their liberty, in which successive violations of the right to life of persons protected by said measures have taken place (for example, mater of Mendoza Prisons, Urso Branco Prison, Children Deprived of Liberty in the Complexo del Tatuapé of the FEBEM, among others) confirm the inadequacy and uselessness of the search for a “negotiated solution” or “conciliation” in the present context, as well as the urgent need to address the issue of provisional measures of protection from the stance of international responsibility of the State, and —I should add, If I may— of autonomous responsibility in connection with the merits of any such case. IV. Conclusion 20. However, Provisional Measures of Protection, the up-to-date development of which under the American Convention amounts to a true conquest of the Law, are still —as I see it— at their early stages, in the beginning of their evolution, and they will grow and strengthen even more to the extent universal juridical conscience awakes to acknowledge the need for their conceptual refinement in all of their aspects. International Law of Human Rights have transformed the very conception of said measures —from precautionary to protective— revealing the current historic process of humanization of Public International Law in this specific domain as well; although this process is still in course of development. 21. This is the road ahead. As a next step, it is paramount nowadays to develop both their legal governing rules, and —within this context— the legal consequences of breach or violations of Provisional Measures of Protection, endowed with their own autonomy. I believe victims have a truly central role both in the present context of prevention as in the resolution of the case upon its merits (and eventual reparations) relating to a contentious case, as they are the subjects of International Law of Human Rights and of contemporary Public International Law, with international juridical-procedural capacity. Antônio Augusto Cançado Trindade Judge Pablo Saavedra Alessandri Secretary