SEPARATE CONCURRING OPINION OF JUDGE SERGIO GARCIA-RAMIREZ IN THE SEPTEMBER 4, 2004 ORDER OF THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS ON PROVISIONAL MEASURES IN THE MATTER OF “GLOBOVISIÓN” TELEVISION STATION In the instant Opinion, I reiterate the considerations that I set forth in my separate concurring opinions attached to the Orders issued by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights with respect to the provisional measures in the Matter of Pueblo indígena de Kankuamo (July 5, 2004 Order), in the Matter of “El Nacional” and “Así es la Noticia” Newspapers (July 6, 2004 Order) and in the Matter of Pueblo indígena de Sarayaku (July 6, 2004 Order), and I will now reiterate said considerations. 1. In recent years, the jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, heir to and beneficiary of the tradition of previous stages, has innovated with respect to various significant topics. The new criteria of the Court broaden the horizon of protection of human rights in a manner that is consistent with the values protected by International Law regarding this matter, set within the framework of the American Convention. Provisional measures are among the subjects addressed by the jurisprudence of the Court. 2. In this sphere, provisional measures address the general needs of judicial procedure and the objectives and requirements that pertain specifically to the system for protection of human rights. Therefore, they serve a dual purpose: a) the generic one, pertaining to any judicial procedure –as well as the preparatory proceedings for the judicial procedure- based on maintaining its subject matter, securing the evidence, presence of the participants, and so forth; and b) the specific one, resulting from the needs of the system for protection of human rights itself, pursuant to Article 63(2) of the American Convention. 3. Under the latter concept, provisional measures are geared toward protecting juridical rights against immediate threats. They are put into effect in cases of extreme gravity and urgency, when necessary to avoid irreparable damage. The Court has addressed these crucial references of protective measures before: gravity, urgency, imminence of irreparable damage. There are various matters to be addressed in this regard, in addition to those requirements for such measures, i.e.: the evidence required, the beneficiaries of the measures, their entity, the binding nature of the Court’s protective measures, their duration, execution, and oversight, for example. I have analyzed these matters, addressed by jurisprudence, on several occasions. 4. Clearly, one of the salient points in the provisional measures system of the Inter-American Court, on which I will focus this Concurring opinion regarding several Orders issued during the same regular session, is that of the beneficiaries of the measures. Traditionally, the Court has maintained that said beneficiaries must be individually identified, to enable issuing the measure and ensuring compliance with it. However, it has been noted that under various circumstances there is, in fact, a situation of extreme gravity and urgency, associated with the possibility –more than that: a probability- of irreparable damage to the rights compromised, and it is not feasible to immediately establish –given the circumstances of urgency that explain