2 by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on this subject has significantly contributed to this, more than any other international court’s case law. The Court’s interpretation in this respect, endowed with a conventional basis, is truly exemplary, unparalleled -in terms of scope - in contemporary international case law as a result of having duly exploited the great protection potential -though prevention - that arises from the provisions of Article 63(2) of the American Convention on Human Rights. Despite the progress accomplished by the Court to the present day, there is still a long way to go (infra). II. The Autonomous International Responsibility regarding to Provisional Measures of Protection under the American Convention 4. Endowed with truly protective efficacy, Provisional Measures of Protection under the American Convention entail -as I have pointed out in many Opinions as a member of this Court - autonomous responsibility for compliance, which adds to the initial responsibility for the safeguarding of the protected rights. The implementation of such provisional measures has expanded (currently protecting, in Latin America and the Caribbean, almost 12,000 persons, and even the members of whole communities),12 and they have become a true preventive judicial guarantee.13 This is the origin of the autonomous nature of international responsibility, duly recognized in this Order of the Court in the matter of the Penitentiary in Araraquara regarding Brazil (Considering clause No. 19). 5. This means, as I stated in my recent Separate Opinion in the Matter of the Mendoza Prisons regarding Argentina (Order on Provisional Measures of Protection of March 30, 2006) as well as in other Opinions as a member of this Court, that: “despite the merits of the respective cases, the notion of victim also emerges within the new context of Provisional Measures of Protection. (...) Furthermore, the notion of victims as the central focus14 has been also affirmed in this present context of prevention of irreparable damage to human beings. Provisional Measures of Protection create conventional obligations for the States involved, which differ from the obligations arising out of the Judgments on the merits of the cases, respectively. Some obligations effectively originate in Provisional Measures of Protection per se. They are entirely different from the obligations, if any, created by 12 . In the Matter of Pueblo indígena de Kankuamo regarding Colombia only, there are approximately 6,000 beneficiaries of the measures; in the Matter of the Peace Community of San José de Apartadó regarding Colombia, the beneficiaries are over 1,200; in the Matter of the Communities of Jiguamiandó and Curbaradó regarding Colombia, the beneficiaries are over 2,000; in the Matter of Urso Branco Prison regarding Brazil, almost 900 inmates benefit from such measures; in the Matter of Pueblo indígena de Sarayaku regarding Ecuador, there are approximately 1,200 beneficiaries; among several others. 13 . For an analysis of this evolution, cf. A.A. Cançado Trindade, Tratado de Direito Internacional dos Direitos Humanos, Vol. II, Porto Alegre, S.A. Fabris Ed., 2003, pp. 80-83; A.A. Cançado Trindade, "Les Mesures provisoires de protection dans la jurisprudence de la Cour Interaméricaine des Droits de l'Homme", in Mesures conservatoires et droits fondamentaux (publ. G. Cohen Jonathan and J.-F. Flauss), Bruxelles, Bruylant/Nemesis, 2005, pp. 145-163; A.A. Cançado Trindade, "Les Mesures provisoires de protection dans la jurisprudence de la Cour Interaméricaine des Droits de l'Homme", 4 Revista do Instituto Brasileiro de Direitos Humanos (2003) pp. 13-25; A.A. Cançado Trindade, "The Evolution of Provisional Measures of Protection under the Case-Law of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (1987-2002)", 24 Human Rights Law Journal - Strasbourg/Kehl (2003), n. 5-8, pp. 162-168. 14 . Cf. A.A. Cançado Trindade, El Acceso Directo del Individuo a los Tribunales Internacionales de Derechos Humanos (Direct Access of Individuals to International Human Rights Courts), Bilbao, Universidad de Deusto, 2001, pp. 9-104.