4 6. Evidently, there may be a violation of the right to life even whilst the victims have not yet been deprived of theirs. The right to life - like any other right - can be viewed as affected in an iter that moves through various stages, named and identified, all of which, by a common design conferred by nature and sense terminate the life of an individual. The last phase in this iter culminates in the deprivation of the life itself, object of the maximum affection of this right. Before, there may be other moments: all of which, in conformance with the circumstances, aspire and lead to this end. Such is the case of a general norm that runs contrary to the American Convention (or to the State Constitution, where domestic issues are at stake): the norm may be challenged on jurisdictional grounds before its implementation produces consequences which may give rise to a concrete case. It has been maintained that a law contrary to the Convention cannot in itself be impugned (as is often possible in the case of unconstitutional laws in the domestic sphere), before it has actually been applied and the threat it poses is realized in fact. The Inter-American Court held at one time that its jurisdictional authority in litigious cases extends to acts of the State carried out on specific persons, 11 but it has also stated - and explained - that a law may per se violate the international pact. 12 It is pertinent to observe that a law may in itself constitute a threat to the right to life, in the same way as it may contravene the right to nationality, to juridical personality, to property, to family, to integrity, etc., although it has yet to be applied in a concrete case. The mere existence of the law - once in force - leaves the protected interest (life) exposed, compromised, and in danger. 13 Consider that the judicial protection accorded can and often does anticipate the case where someone fears the application of the law in question and seeks to take precautions against it: it is not only the act perpetrated which is impugned but that norm which authorizes its future execution as well. These are the parameters within which constitutional justice operates. The inter-American system moves in this direction when it opens the door to adopting provisional measures, whether 11 Cf. I/A Court H.R., Genie Lacayo Case. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of January 27, 1995. Series C No. 21, para. 50. 12 In OC-13, the Court made reference to types of violations of the American Convention: omitting to dictate binding norms under Article 2 of this pact or to list norms that contravene the Convention. I/A Court H.R., 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. 26. In OC-14, the Tribunal distinguished between laws which do not necessarily affect the legal sphere of specific individuals, because they may require subsequent normative measures, compliance with additional conditions or implementation by state authorities and "self-executing laws", where "the violation of human rights, whether individual or collective, occurs upon their promulgation." I/A Court H.R., International responsibility for the promulgation and enforcement of laws in violation of the Convention (Arts. 1 and 2 American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-14/94 of December 9, 1994. Series A No. 14, paras. 41-43 and 49. In a litigious case, the Tribunal established that a penal norm that denies a category of the prisoners certain rights that are enjoyed conferred on others, "violates per se Article 2 of the American Convention, whether or not it was enforced in the instant case." I/A Court H.R., Suárez Rosero Case. Judgment of November 12, 1997. Series C No. 35, para. 95 and operative paragraph 5. In the same sense, cf. I/A Court H.R., Castillo Petruzzi et al. Case. Judgment of May 30, 1999. Series C No. 52, para. 205. 13 It is useful to recall the lesson taught by criminal law in this respect, having its own titular practice for judicially protected interests: not only is the deprivation of life sanctioned, but the attempt to murder, and in some cases conspiracy to murder as well. Punishment appears at diverse moments of the iter criminis.