4 corresponding documents of the OAS for the two-year period 2005-2006.12 I hope that in the near future they will generate specific results. 15. In the above-referred documents, I proposed, inter alia, that in my opinion, Article 77 of the Convention should be amended so that not only any State Party and the Commission, but also the Court, would be entitled to submit Projects of Additional Protocols to the American Convention –as it naturally corresponds to the highest surveillance body of said Convention,- in order to increase the number of rights protected by the conventions and to strengthen the mechanism of protection established by the Convention.13 16. Furthermore, and taking into account the current position of the human being as subject of International Law of Human Rights (and, in my opinion, of the International Public Law), I sustained that Article 61(1) of the Convention should have the following wording: - "The States Parties, the Commission and the alleged victims shall be entitled to submit a case to the Court.” And, following the same line of thought, I wish to add in this Separate Opinion, the additional proposal that Article 63(2) of the American Convention should also be materially amended and therefore its text would be as follows: - "In cases of extreme seriousness and urgency, and when it is necessary to avoid irreparable damage to persons, the Court, in the cases pending before it, shall be able to order the provisional measures it may deem convenient. In cases not yet submitted to the Court, it shall be able to act upon request of the Commission or of the alleged potential victims.” 17. In the mechanism of protection of the American Convention, the right to individual petition shall be fully achieved when said right may be directly exercised by petitioners before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. This is the reason of my proposal to amend Article 61(1) of the Convention, encompassing also the amendment of Article 63(2), under certain circumstances, as regards Provisional Measures of Protection. In my opinion, such amendment is fully justified, especially if the alleged circumstances of extreme seriousness and urgency and the alleged probability of irreparable harm to persons are present. Antônio Augusto Cançado Trindade Judge Pablo Saavedra-Alessandri Secretary . OAS, document AG/RES.2129 (XXXV-0/050), of 06.07.2005, pp. 1-3; OAS, document CP/CAJP2311/05/Rev.2, of 02.27.2006, pp. 1-3. 12 . I further pointed out that the Statute of the Inter-American Court (of 1979) needs several amendments (which I described in the above-referred document). Moreover, I added that Articles 24(3) and 28 of the Statute should be amended: in Article 24(3), the words "shall be delivered in public session and” should be eliminated; and in Article 28, the words “shall appear as a party,” should also be eliminated. 13