SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE A. A. CANÇADO TRINDADE 1. In concurring with the passage of this Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in this city of Brasilia, in which the Court has ordered new Provisional Measures for the Protection of all the persons held in custody in the Mendoza Prisons in Argentina, I am under the obligation to retake two personal arguments on the building up of which I have been working for some time now from within this Court. The first one refers to the erga omnes obligation of protection under the provisions of the American Convention (taking into account the need to contain and prevent prison chronic violence). These obligations have been the subject-matter of many Opinions I have in the past rendered as a member of the Court10; and the second one relates to what I call, if I may, the autonomous responsibility of a State in connection with provisional measures of protection pursuant to the provisions of the American Convention on Human Rights. The lines herein will be mainly devoted to the presentation of the lessons that I will extract, if I may, from the public hearing before the Inter-American Court in Brasilia, which has just been closed, and the conclusions of this present Separate Opinion. 2. As it is my custom, I write this Opinion under the merciless and wearing pressure of time, few hours after the closing of the public hearings on the date hereof (March 30, 2006) before the Inter-American Court, in the city of Brasilia, Brazil, relating to this present matter of the Mendoza Prisons in Argentina, amidst the working conditions typical of the Organization of American States (OAS) — marked with many discourses but few resources— little adequate for meditation. Fortunately, during the Court public hearings in Brasilia, I managed to meet silence, a faithful companion, during the intervals and protocolary events, so as to reflect — in the so-much needed and comforting solitude— on how to make headway in the present realm of protection in the matter of provisional measures, in favor of the imprisoned. I. Erga Omnes Obligations under the American Convention and the Drittwirkung 3. In my Separate Opinion in the matter of the Peace Community of San José de Apartadó (Order of June 18, 2002), I allowed myself to point out that the a State’s 10 . For example, my Separate Opinions in Orders for Provisional Measures for Protection passed by the Court in the Matter of the Peace Community of San José de Apartadó . Provisional Measure regarding Colombia (June 18, 2002 and March 15, 2003), Matter of the Communities of Jiguamiandó and Curbaradó. Provisional Measure regarding Colombia (March 3, 2006, and March 15, 2005), Matter of the Pueblo Indígena Kankuamo. Provisional Measure regarding Colombia (July 5, 2004); Matter of the Pueblo Indígena de Sarayaku. Provisional Measure regarding Ecuador (July 6, 2004, and June 17, 2005), and Matter of Urso Branco. Provisional Measure regarding Brazil (July 7, 2004), Matter of ‘Globovision’ Television Station. Provisional Measure regarding Venezuela (September 4, 2004), Matter of the Mendoza Prisons. Provisional Measure regarding Argentina (June 16, 2005), Matter of the Children Deprived of Liberty in the "Complexo do Tatuapé" of FEBEM . Provisional Measure regarding Brazil (November 30, 2005). Cfr. further, on the same topic of erga omnes measures of protection, my previous Separate Opinions on Judgment on the merits, January 24, 1998, and on reparations, January 22, 1999, in the case of Blake v. Guatemala; and mi Separate Opinion in the Case of Las Palmeras v. Colombia (Judgment on preliminary objections, February 4, 2000). And cfr., more recent material, on the same topic, my Separate Opinions in the case of the Mapiripán Massacre v. Colombia (Judgment of September 15, 2005), and Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia (Judgment of January 31, 2006), as well as my extensive Concurrent Opinion in the Advisory Opinion No. 18 on the Juridical Condition and Rights of Undocumented Migrants (September 17, 2003); among others.