-2ago, the former’s expectation of protection and the latter’s possibility of granting it will be limited to the hypothesis of the formal proceedings before the judicial body. Indeed, Article 8 alludes to “judicial” guarantees [Note: the title of the article in Spanish], and then refers to a “tribunal [or judge].” However, this limited scope would be totally insufficient nowadays to achieve the goals that the international system for the protection of human rights has set itself. If the guarantees established in Article 8, which governs the most relevant issues of procedural protection, are limited to the actions of the judicial body, the definition of rights and freedoms by mechanisms that are formally different from the judicial mechanism, but essentially close to the latter to the extent that they serve the same end – to define rights and establish obligations - would not be protected. 6. For example, in several countries the solution of disputes between the Public Administration and the citizen is entrusted to the judicial body: in others, to jurisdictional or administrative body located outside the Judiciary. In some States, once certain information de facto and de jure has been established, the investigation of offenses and the decision on whether there is criminal liability is entrusted to an administrative authority, the Attorney General’s Office (el Ministerio Público) – which is neither judge nor court – while in others, it is entrusted to trial judges, who have this formal and material nature. Some transcendental decisions regarding harm to property, the definition of rights between members of different social sectors, the responsibilities of public servants, and measures of protection for children and adolescents (different from those resulting from the violation of a criminal law) have been entrusted to judicial instances, but others – that involve the denial of rights and the control of obligations – are entrusted to instances of a different nature. Historic and contemporary national experiences allow us to add new and abundant examples. 7. The Inter-American Court’s case law concerning due process, judicial protection, procedural guarantees or the preparation and execution of the defense of the individual – all expressions that involve a sole concern – have evolved the content of due process of law in a progressive direction – invariably “garantista” [privileging or prioritizing due process and the rights of the individual]. Thus, the Court’s case law has established what I have called “procedure’s ‘current frontier’” (separate opinion to Advisory Opinion OC16), which changes as necessary, not at whim or giving rise to uncertainty, to adapt the defense of the individual to emerging requirements. 8. Thus, the Court has established that the right of the foreign detainee to be informed of the consular assistance he can receive – a right that is not asserted before judicial body – is a right within the framework of due process; that the guarantees established for criminal proceedings – embodied in Article 8(2) – are also applicable to administrative proceedings, to the extent that the latter (as the former) involve a manifestation of the punitive powers of the State; that the rights established by law in favor of the accused in the criminal sphere must also be applied at other procedural levels, when applicable, etcetera. 9. All the above – and evidently I realize that they are situations of a different type, but connected by a single guiding principle – reveals a sole purpose of protection that is identified by the objective that the decisions of the authorities defining individual rights and obligations, whatever these may be, should satisfy the minimum conditions of objectivity, rationality and legality. 10. In the Case of Claude Reyes et al., I have maintained that the decision of the administrative body determining which information would be provided to the applicants and which information would not be provided to them constituted an act that defined