26 enliven the OAS, as a debate in such a forum would show the Member States not only the strengths but also the deficiencies and weaknesses of the system, with a view to strengthening and improving it. 40. The failure to inform about compliance with the judgment in the case of Hilaire, Constantine, Benjamin et al. v. Trinidad and Tobago has led me to expose in this separate opinion in the case of Caesar v. Trinidad and Tobago the weaknesses of the system in this area, in the hope that no situations such as those described herein will reoccur and that the OAS Member States, but especially the States Party to the American Convention will implement the mechanism required for the judgments pronounced by the Inter-American Court to be fully complied with, on account of the fact that, as this Court has consistently held, “[i]n a democratic society, the rights and freedoms inherent in the human person, the guarantees applicable to them and the rule of law form a triad. Each component thereof defines itself, complements and depends on the others for its meaning.”44 Manuel E. Ventura-Robles Judge Pablo Saavedra-Alessandri Secretary 44 ICourtHR, Hábeas Corpus in Emergency Situations (Arts. 27(2), 25(1) and 7(6) American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-8/87 of January 30, 1987. Series A No. 8, para. 26; ICourtHR, Judicial Guarantees in States of Emergency (Arts. 27(2), 25 and 8 American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-9/87 of October 6, 1987. Series A No. 9. para. 35; and ICourtHR, Certain Attributes of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (Arts. 41, 42, 44, 46, 47, 50 and 51 American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-13/93 of July 16, 1993. Series A No. 13, para. 31