3 consequently, a means of “determining the rules of law” established by an autonomous source of international law – in other words, treaty, custom, general principle of law or unilateral legal act,13 may, in future change when judgment is handed down in another case. And, regarding the latter, because the function of developing international standards is a matter for the States and, in the case of the Convention, its States Parties, by amendments to the Convention.14 Therefore, I wish to put on record that, the considerations set forth in this opinion do not seek, under any circumstance, to weaken or restrict the effectiveness of human rights, but rather, precisely the contrary. Indeed, the following considerations respond to the certainty that real respect for human rights is achieved if the States Parties to the Convention are required to comply with what they freely and sovereignly accepted. In this regard, legal certainty plays a fundamental role and, consequently, cannot be understood as a limitation or restriction to the development of human rights, but rather as the instrument that can best ensure real respect for them or their prompt re-establishment, if they have been violated. What underlies this text is, therefore, the fact that law is the means to achieve justice, and justice to achieve peace and, consequently, given that international human rights law forms part of general international law, the interpretation and application of the former should be carried out in harmony with the provisions of the latter.15 In addition, it is relevant to indicate that this text also responds to the circumstance that the Court, as a judicial organ, enjoys the broadest autonomy in is task, since there is no higher authority that can control its conduct, a characteristic that means that it is essential for the Court to be extremely rigorous in the exercise of its jurisdiction, in order not to distort this and, consequently, weaken the inter-American system for the protection of human rights. In this regard, the following opinion seeks to ensure the broadest possible recognition of the Court by all those who appear before it and, thus, to strengthen its capacity as a judicial organ and, to which they are parties.” Art. 46(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights: “ The High Contracting Parties undertake to abide by the final judgment of the Court in any case to which they are parties.” Art. 46. and 3 of the Statute of the African Court of Justice and Human Rights: “Binding Force and Execution of Judgments. 1. The decision of the Court shall be binding on the parties. … 3. The parties shall comply with the judgment made by the Court in any dispute to which they are parties within the time stipulated by the Court and shall guarantee its execution.” Art. 59 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice: “The decision of the Court has no binding force except between the parties and in respect of that particular case.” Art. 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: 13 (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 if the parties agree thereto.” Art. 31: “Recognition of Other Rights. Other rights and freedoms recognized in accordance with the procedures established in Articles 76 and 77 may be included in the system of protection of this Convention.” 14 Art. 76(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.” Art. 77(1): “In accordance with Article 31, any State Party and the Commission may submit proposed protocols to this Convention for consideration by the States Parties at the General Assembly with a view to gradually including other rights and freedoms within its system of protection.” Art. 31.3.c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties: ““General rule of interpretation.... There shall be taken into account, together with the context: … (c) any relevant rules of international law applicable in the relations between the parties.” 15