turn, should have explicitly included an obligation for the State to comply with the provisional measures ordered, which would be considered to be lifted, and thus the ruling executed, once the “extreme gravity and urgency” and the risk of “irreparable damage to persons” that justified the adoption of the measures have disappeared. In this way, there would have been no room for doubt or uncertainty on this issue. Of course, should the State fail to comply with the measures, the Court could report the failure to comply with the ruling to the OAS General Assembly.12 The more detailed grounds for this position, which considers, as has been indicated on another occasion,13 that on one hand, that the Court’s strict respect for the rules that govern it is a sine qua non for duly safeguarding human rights, while on the other hand, jurisprudence is an auxiliary means for determining the rules of law 14 and is obligatory only for the parties in dispute and with regard to the case that has been decided,15 and can therefore be modified in other cases. This is found in the dissenting opinions on the same matter that I issued on July 15, 2011, with regard to the Orders of the Court related to "Provisional Measures with regard to the Republic of Colombia, Case of Gutiérrez Soler v. Colombia”, of June 30, 2011, “Provisional Measures with regard to Mexico, Case of Rosendo Cantú et al. v. Mexico,” of July 1, 2011, and “Provisional Measures with regard to the Republic of Honduras, Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras,” of July 5, 2011, as well as in the brief, related with these same Orders, that I presented before the Court on August 17, 2011, an argument that I have reiterated in other cases16 and matters.17 Eduardo Vio Grossi Judge Pablo Saavedra Alessandri Secretary Article 65 of the Convention. Dissenting Opinion on the Judgment of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on the Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Case of Barbani et al. v. Uruguay, Judgment of October 13, 2011, III. General Considerations. 14 Articles 62(1) and (3) of the Convention and Article 38(1) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice. 15 Articles. 63(1) of the Convention and Article 59 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice. 16 Concurring Opinion, Case of Torres Millacura et al. v. Argentina, Judgment of August 26, 2011, Merits, Reparations and Costs, and Concurring Opinion, Case of Barrios Family v. Venezuela, Judgment of November 24, 2011, Merits, Reparations and Costs. 17 Dissenting Opinion, Order on Provisional Measures, Matter of Millacura Llaipén with regard to Argentina, November 25, 2011. 12 13 2