2 I am of opinion that there is ample precedent in the jurisprudence of this Court, without necessity for the creation of a new head of damages, to permit the Court to assess the damage here identified and to make the appropriate orders in terms of Article 63 of the American Convention on Human Rights ("the Convention"), from which the Court derives its authority to order reparations when it finds that there has been a violation of a right or freedom protected in the Convention. From the time of its very first decision on reparations (Velásquez Rodríguez Case, Compensatory Damages (Art. 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights), Judgment of July 21, 1989. Series C No. 7) this Court, like other similar international tribunals, has recognised that violations of the protected rights give rise to a right on the part of the plaintiff to "reparation of the consequences of the violation, and indemnification for patrimonial and non-patrimonial (sc: "material" and "moral" or "pecuniary" and "non-pecuniary") damages, including emotional harm." (Loc. cit.: para. 26; emphasis added). Under the Convention the Court has authority to order "fair compensation" to be paid to a successful plaintiff. In a given case it is thus open to the tribunal, once the standard test of remoteness of the damage is met, to rule on any identifiable damage which the plaintiff has sustained as a result of violations of the rights and freedoms protected under the Convention. A claim for "loss of development prospects" can therefore be examined in precisely the same manner 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