3 to the exercise of guaranteed rights are to be restrictively interpreted. The work of the Inter-American and European Courts of Human Rights has indeed contributed to the creation of an international ordre public based upon the respect for human rights in all circumstances4. 8. As I have pondered in my Separate Opinion in the Blake versus Guatemala case (reparations, 1999) before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, "(...) in so far as human rights treaties are concerned, one is to bear always in mind the objective character of the obligations enshrined therein, the autonomous meaning (in relation to the domestic law of the States) of the terms of such treaties, the collective guarantee underlying them, the wide scope of the obligations of protection and the restrictive interpretation of permissible restrictions. These elements converge in sustaining the integrity of human rights treaties, in seeking the fulfilment of their object and purpose, and, accordingly, in establishing limits to State voluntarism. From all this one can detect a new vision of the relations between public power and the human being, which is summed up, ultimately, in the recognition that the State exists for the human being, and not vice-versa"5. 9. Another aspect to be here recalled is that of the autonomous meaning of the terms of human rights treaties (as distinct from their meaning, e.g., in domestic law). The point, stressed by the Human Rights Committee (under the U.N. Covenant on Civil and Political Rights) in the adoption of its views in the Van Duzen versus Canada case (in 1982), has also been taken up by the two regional - European and Inter-American Courts of Human Rights. The European Court has endorsed the doctrine of autonomous interpretation in its judgments, for example, in the Ringeisen (1971), König (1978) and Le Compte (1981 and 1983) cases. The Inter-American Court, in its turn, in its sixth Advisory Opinion, on The Word "Laws" in Article 30 of the American Convention on Human Rights (1986), clarified that the word "laws" in Article 30 of the American Convention, to be examined in accordance not only with the principle of legality but also with that of legitimacy, means a juridical norm of a general character, turned to the "general welfare", emanated from the legislative organs constitutionally foreseen and democratically elected, and elaborated according to the procedure for law-making established by the Constitutions of States Parties. 10. Moreover, the dynamic or evolutive interpretation of the respective human rights Conventions (the intertemporal dimension) has been followed by both the European Court6 and the Inter-American Court7, so as to fulfil the changing needs of 4 . A.A. Cançado Trindade, "Le développement du Droit international des droits de l'homme à travers l'activité et la jurisprudence des Cours Européenne et Interaméricaine des Droits de l'Homme" (Discours du Président de la Cour Interaméricaine des Droits de l'Homme), in CourEDH, Cour Européenne des Droits de l'Homme Rapport annuel 2003, Strasbourg, CourEDH, 2004, pp. 41-50. 5 . IACtHR, Blake versus Guatemala case (Reparations), Judgment of 22.01.1999, Series C, n. 48, Separate Opinion of Judge A.A. Cançado Trindade, pp. 52-53, par. 33, and cf. pars. 32-34. 6 . E.g., cases Tyrer versus United Kingdom (1978), Airey versus Ireland (1979), Marckx versus Belgium (1979), Dudgeon versus United Kingdom (1981), among others. 7 . Cf., in this sense, the obiter dicta in: Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR), Advisory Opinion OC10/89, on the Interpretation of the American Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man in the Framework of Article 64 of the American Convention on Human Rights, of 14.07.1989, pars. 37-38; IACtHR, Advisory Opinion OC-16/99, on the Right to Information on Consular Assistance in the Framework of the Guarantees of