131. With this, I go on to my final considerations regarding a matter that has been my flag throughout all my years as a Full Judge of the Inter-American Court: the right of human beings to a fair trial – both national and international – as a right to the realization of justice, thus becoming an imperative of the jus cogens. The present case of the Castro Castro Prison highlights this matter, in order to achieve the overcoming of private vengeance by public justice, - as can be concluded from Aeschylus’ The Oresteia. 132. It is not my objective to reiterate here everything I have written in this sense, but instead point out some aspects regarding the matter, which become especially relevant within the context of the present Judgment of Interpretation in the case of the Castro Castro Prison. The right to a fair trial lato sensu (the right to jurisdictional assistance) is a basic pillar of the protection of human rights. It is enshrined in the American Convention, with regard to both the national (Articles 25 and 8) and international (Article 44) realm, being a real right to Law. 1. The Right to a Fair Trial Lato Sensu. 133. In its constant jurisprudence, the Inter-American Court, in relation to the realm of the domestic law of the States Parties to the American Convention, has correctly assumed the definition lato sensu of the right to a fair trial, when it has mentioned the intimate correlationship between the right to an effective recourse (Article 25) and the guarantees of the due process of law (Article 8). With regard to the international realm, the right to make an individual petition, conceived with the most ample liberality (Article 44) has proven to be an effective means of solving not only individual cases, but also cases of massive and systematic violations to human rights.101 134. More than twelve years ago, in the Judgments of the Court on preliminary objections in the cases of Castillo Páez and Loayza Tamayo (of 01.30.1996 and 01.31.1996, respectively) regarding Peru, I stated, in my Concurring Opinions, the arguments in support to the granting of the locus standi in judicio to the petitioners in all the stages of the proceedings before the Court (paras. 14-17). Said arguments were taken into account for the introduction of the historic changes made by Article 23 of the third, and fourth, and current, Rules of Procedure of the Court (of 1996 and 2000). In my extensive Concurring Opinion in the Court’s Judgment (on preliminary objections in the case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. versus Peru (of 09.04.1998), I pointed out the fundamental nature of the right to an individual international petition (Article 44) (paras. 3 and 36-38), as a “historical rescue” of the individual’s position as a subject of International Human Rights Law, endowed with full international procedural capacity (paras. 5 and 12). 135. Likewise, I revised the historia juris of said right to petition (paras. 9-15), and I mentioned the expansion of the notion of “victim��� in the jurisprudence under human rights treaties (paras. 16-19), as well as referring to the autonomy of the right of individual international petition vis-à-vis the domestic law of the States (paras. 21, 27, and 29). And I warned that, if it were not for the exercise of this right, justice would not have been done in many cases of grave violations (paras. 33 and 35). . A.A. Cançado Trindade, "The Right of Access to Justice in the Inter-American System of Human Rights Protection", in Italian Yearbook of International Law (2007) (in press). 101