5 Convention added that cultural diversity can only be protected and promoted through the safeguard of human rights.11 24. It is my understanding that the universal juridical conscience has evolved towards a clear recognition of the relevance of cultural diversity for the universality of human rights, and vice-versa. Additionally it has evolved toward the humanization of International Law, and the creation, at this beginning of the XXI century, of a new jus gentium, a new International Law for humankind, - and the aforementioned triad of UNESCO Conventions (of 1972, 2003, and 2005) are in my view one of the many contemporary manifestations of the human conscience to this effect.12 IV. Conclusion 25. The determination of measures of reparation – such as those contemplated in the present case, - is effectuated by the Court in light of the relevant provisions of the American Convention, and not of the land rights regulations of Suriname. To assume the contrary would deprive the Court of its powers, which are granted by the American Convention, and were accepted by Suriname upon ratification of the Convention and its acceptance of the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court; this would be inadmissible. The Court interprets and applies the American Convention, and not Suriname’s regulations on land rights. If these internal regulations present obstacles to compliance with the reparation measures ordered by the Court, those obstacles should be removed, and national regulations relative to land rights should be harmonized with the American Convention, in a manner which provides reparations to all those victimized. Pact sunt servanda. 26. This is a case, in my understanding, also concerning the land rights in Suriname, which has been correctly resolved by the Inter-American Court in the light of the pertinent regulations of the American Convention. I hope, with this, to clarify the doubts respectfully presented to the Court by Suriname at the end of its written brief of 10/4/2005 (p. 11, para. 22). The response to the State’s brief submitted by the representatives (of 11/10/2005, paras. 24-50), on behalf of the victims, who are true subjects of International Law of Human Rights, has been adequate. Additionally, the State indicated in its aforementioned brief, its willingness to comply with its “international obligations” (pp. 11-12, para. 23, and cf. pp. 4-5, para. 9), among which compliance with the 6/15/2005 Judgment of this Court in the present Case of the Moiwana Community is included. I have the confidence that Suriname – a country with 11 Article 2(1) of the 2005 Convention. Cf., in general, e.g., A.Ch. Kiss and A.A. Cançado Trindade, "Two Major Challenges of Our Time: Human Rights and the Environment", in Human Rights, Sustainable Development and Environment (Seminar of Brasilia of 1992, ed. A.A. Cançado Trindade), 2nd. ed., Brasilia/San José of Costa Rica, IIDH/BID, 1995, pp. 289-290; A.A. Cançado Trindade, Direitos Humanos e Meio Ambiente: Paralelo dos Sistemas de Proteção Internacional, Porto Alegre/Brazil, S.A. Fabris Ed., 1993, pp. 282-283. Cf. A.A. Cançado Trindade, "General Course on Public International Law - International Law for Humankind: Towards a New Jus Gentium", Recueil des Cours de l'Académie de Droit International de La Haye (2005), ch. XIII (in print). 12