7 means to obtain a just judgment. It entails clean and balanced use of the arms that both the accuser and the defendant are allowed to use, as well as objectivity, serenity, and the will of the court to give to each one what is due; in brief, fair trial. All these concepts, each of which has been characterized and positioned in the domestic legal systems, have a common denominator in their origin, development, and objective, and they come together under the concept of due process. 28. We had gained much ground in the endeavor for due process. The Court has referred to it –thus, for example, in Advisory Opinion OC-16/99, on “The right to information on consular assistance,” of October 1, 1999, to which I added a separate Opinion in which I analyzed this point- as a system of guarantees with expansive power. The static aspect of due process, sheltered in certain acts, rights, and guarantees that are non-revocable, has been reinforced by the modern dynamics of this concept: a constant progress that has brought with it, alongside consolidation of democracy and the Rule of Law, new rights and emerging guarantees, which together constitute the more advanced idea and practice of due process. 29. This evolution led to the addition and blossoming of the right to silence, timely assistance by defense counsel, the right to immediate information on the charges that give rise to the proceeding, restrictions on preventive imprisonment, judicial guarantees in adoption of precautionary measures or in conduct of certain investigative acts, the right to information on consular assistance for the benefit of foreign defendants, the public and oral nature of the proceeding, discredit of evidence based on confessions, to mention just a few breakthroughs that have become a part of due process, surpassing its original nucleus. 30. I stated that we had gained this ground, yet now we must note, once again, that no progress is definitive –the struggle for the law, in more than one sense, is the only possible banner in this field- and that a disturbing erosion of human rights has begun to take place in the scope of the proceeding. Persistence of old forms of crime, the appearance of new expressions of crime, systematic attacks by organized crime, the extraordinary virulence of certain extremely grave crimes –such as terrorism and drug trafficking- have determined a sort of “exasperation or desperation” which is ill advised: it suggests setting aside progress and going back to systems or measures that already demonstrated their enormous ethical and practical flaws. In one of its extreme versions, this has generated phenomena such as the “guantanamonization” of the criminal proceeding, recently questioned by the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court of Justice of the United States itself. 31. There is often leeway given to practices and, worse yet, to legal provisions that derogate rights and guarantees in the framework of the struggle against very grave crimes that seem to “justify” this type of regressions. The consequences of this, which by the way has not managed to prevent, impede or reduce these crimes, is clearly visible in broad areas of contemporary procedural experience. Not only do these incorporated provisions construct a special or exceptional procedural system, alongside the regular procedural system with its guarantees, lacking in the special one. Obviously, this also leads to the appearance and strengthening of a devastating practice that resorts to all kinds of arguments to “legitimize” the gravest violations. These often remain in shadows; sometimes they appear before the eyes of public opinion and of the courts, as in the case judgment to which I attach this Opinion. VII. Presumption of innocence