2 as any other claim, with a determination as to whether and to what extent it is quantifiable; and, if not quantifiable, what fair order may be made with a view to remedying the consequences of the particular violation or violations, as far as is possible in the particular circumstances. There is, therefore, no call and no room, in my opinion, for new categories of redress to be imported into the jurisprudence of the Court, particularly if such categories are defined in broad and sweeping terms. Article 63 of the Convention authorises the Court to rule, if appropriate, that the consequences of the measure or situation that constituted the breach... be remedied and that fair compensation be paid to the injured party”. (Emphasis added). Such language already provides the Court with a considerable margin of judicial discretion, wider, indeed, than that enjoyed by the European Court of Human Rights under the corresponding provision of the European Convention (Article 50). If to this is super-added a novel and broadly-conceived head of damages, the juridical security vital to the functioning of the protective system may be put, in my view unnecessarily, at serious risk. Oliver Jackman Judge Manuel E. Ventura-Robles Secretary