14 And, following the same line of thought, I would like to add in this separate opinion, the supplementary proposal to the effect that Article 63(2) of the American Convention should, in an equally significant manner, be amended as follows: "In cases of extreme gravity and urgency, and when necessary to avoid irreparable damage to persons, the Court shall adopt such provisional measures as it deems pertinent in matters it has under consideration. Regarding to a case not yet submitted to its consideration, it may act at the request of the Commission or of the alleged potential victims.” In the protection mechanism of the American Convention, the right of individual petition will attain its maximum expression when it can be exercised by the petitioners directly before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Hence this proposal to amend Article 61(1) of the Convention, extended also to Article 63(2), in certain circumstances, with regard to provisional protection measures. I consider that this is fully justified, particularly in the case of alleged situations of extreme gravity and urgency, with the alleged probability of irreparable damage to persons.” 32. In this matter of the Araraquara penitentiary, the Commission correctly requested the Court to adopt Provisional Measures of protection, as soon as the gravity of the situation became evident (cf. supra), and did not try to previously adopt its precautionary measures. In doing so, it was wise enough to avoid repeating the mistake it made in the previous Matter of Children Deprived of Liberty in the "Complexo do Tatuapé" of FEBEM regarding Brazil —which mistake I pointed out in my Separate Concurring Opinion in the Court’s Order of November 17, 2005—, of unsuccessfully attempting to previously adopt its precautionary measures for years, even in the face of the successive reports of fatal victims (which did not occur in this case). I am satisfied to learn that the Commission heard my warnings. 33. In effect, in the public hearing held before this Court the day before yesterday, September 28, 2006, the Commission’s representative himself (Mr. Florentín Meléndez), confirmed so in replying my question, admitting my argument (supra) that “definitely, there are no legal grounds that support the view that precautionary measures must be exhausted before recourse may be had to the Court seeking Provisional Measures” of Protection.45 Likewise, the representative of the beneficiaries of these Measures and former President of the Commission (Mr. Hélio Bicudo), held the same view in responding to another of my questions, pointing out that “precautionary measures have not the same force as Provisional Measures: precautionary measures are recommendations made to the State, whereas Provisional Measures are imposed on it."46 34. Indeed, it is necessary to seek and apply the legal remedies with conventional force that assure the most effective protection to those needing it, all the more so in situations of emergency. It is no coincidence that, when I approached —from the beginning— the temporal dimension of International Law in my recent General Course on Public International Law, which I delivered at the Hague Academy of International Law (2005), I lay particular stress on Provisional Measures of protection, and specifically those ordered by the contemporary international court that has contributed Internacional Courts of Human Rights), Bilbao, Universidad de Deusto, 2001, pp. 9–104; A. A. Cançado Trindade, Tratado de Direito Internacional dos Direitos Humanos (A Treatise on International Human Rights Law), volume III, Porto Alegre, S.A. Fabris Ed., 2003, pp. 447-497. 45 IACHR, Transcript of the Public Hearing…, op. cit. infra No. (17), p. 39 (internal circulation). 46 IACHR, Transcript of the Public Hearing…, op. cit. supra No. (17), p. 41 (internal circulation). . .