Considering that its case law is binding only for the State that has undertaken to comply with the “judgment of the Court” in the case to which it is a party,47 and that, for the other States Parties to the Convention it is only a subsidiary source of public international law, in other words, a “subsidiary means for the determination of rules of law,48 this dissenting opinion is evidently issued in the hope that it contributes to the reflection on the rule of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies and, thus, leads to the Court’s case law in this regard adopting the criteria described above in the near future. Moreover, this opinion evidently takes into account, as also did another opinion,49 of the fact that one of the particular imperatives faced by a tribunal such as the InterAmerican Court is that of acting with full awareness that, as an autonomous and independent entity, there is no superior authority that controls it, which means that, true to the important role assigned to it, it must strictly respect the limits of this role, and remain and evolve in the sphere inherent to a jurisdictional entity. Without doubt, acting as indicated above is the best contribution that the Court can make to the development and consolidation of the inter-American system of human rights – a requirement sine qua non for the proper safeguard of those rights – an institutional framework within which it is incumbent on the Commission to promote respect for and to defend those rights,50 on the Court to interpret and apply the Convention in the cases that are submitted to it,51 and on the States to amend the Convention if they consider this necessary. 52 The development and strength of this system is rooted in compliance by each of them with their specific roles. 47 Article 68 of the Convention: “1. The States Parties to the Convention undertake to comply with the judgment of the Court in any case to which they are parties. 2. That part of a judgment that stipulates compensatory damages may be executed in the country concerned in accordance with domestic procedure governing the execution of judgments against the State.” 48 Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice: “1. The Court, whose function is to decide in accordance with international law such disputes as are submitted to it, shall apply: a) international conventions, whether general or particular, establishing rules expressly recognized by the contesting states; b) international custom, as evidence of a general practice accepted as law; c) the general principles of law recognized by civilized nations; d. subject to the provisions of Article 59, judicial decisions and the teachings of the most highly qualified publicists of the various nations, as subsidiary means for the determination of rules of law. 2. This provision shall not prejudice the power of the Court to decide a case ex aequo et bono, if the parties agree thereto.” Article 59 of this Statute: “[t]he decision of the Court has no binding force except between the parties and in respect of that particular case”. 49 Record of complaint submitted to the Court on August 17, 2011, by Judge Eduardo Vio Grossi and Dissenting opinion of this judge, Case of Barbani Duarte et al. v. Uruguay. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 13, 2011. Series C No. 234. 50 First phrase of Article 41 of the Convention: “[t]he main function of the Commission shall be to promote respect for and defense of human rights.” 51 Article 62(3) of the Convention: “[t]he jurisdiction of the Court shall comprise all cases concerning the interpretation and application of the provisions of this Convention that are submitted to it, provided that the States Parties to the case recognize or have recognized such jurisdiction, whether by special declaration pursuant to the preceding paragraphs, or by a special agreement.” 52 Article 76 of the Convention: “1. Proposals to amend this Convention may be submitted to the General Assembly for the action it deems appropriate by any State Party directly, and by the Commission or the Court through the Secretary General. 2. Amendments shall enter into force for the States ratifying them on the date when two-thirds of the States Parties to this Convention have deposited their respective instruments of ratification. With respect to the other States Parties, the amendments shall enter into force on the dates on which they deposit their respective instruments of ratification.” 19