JOINT SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGES A.A. CANÇADO TRINDADE AND M.E. VENTURA-ROBLES 1. Through our votes, we have concurred with the adoption, by the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights, of this Order on Provisional Measures of protection in the matter of the Monagas Judicial Confinement Center (“La Pica”), regarding Venezuela, and we also feel obliged to express, in this Joint Separate Opinion, our stance on the issue under discussion. Firstly, the full Court has rightly convened a public hearing to examine this request for provisional measures, pursuant to its Order of January 30, 2006. 2. Said Order of the Court accepted a proposal made by the undersigned Judges regarding this matter. Indeed, we have consistently insisted, in the bosom of the Court, on the need to promptly convene public hearings in cases of extreme gravity and urgency, especially in relation to chronic problems affecting people who are deprived of their freedom. 3. We take cognizance that, in the instant case, as stated in this Order (Having Seen clause 2), the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights promptly registered the corresponding petition, prior to requesting provisional measures from the Court. Furthermore, it made a prompt request, and did not contemplate granting its own precautionary measures first. We believe this is the correct procedure to be followed in cases of extreme gravity and urgency, as provided by Article 63(2) of the American Convention. 4. These measures seek to provide a more effective protection for those who need it, and they reinstate the rule of law as regards this subject. Holding the hearing that we requested, convened by the full Court, proved highly useful thanks to the elements furnished to the Court by the three intervening parties – the beneficiaries' representatives, the Inter-American Commission and the State. It is significant that the Court recognized the need to provide prompt protection, even of a preventive nature, to all the people in the above mentioned prison (“La Pica”), as well as to take care of human rights defenders' personal security. 5. We allow ourselves to highlight the importance of Considering clause 16 hereof, in the sense that the duty of the State to protect all the people within its jurisdiction includes the duty of due diligence and special care and control of third parties’ actions (in the field of interindividual relationships). Said duty of due diligence becomes even more imperative because of its erga omnes nature and because people involved are in the custody of public authorities. Antônio Augusto Cançado Trindade Judge Manuel E. Ventura-Robles Judge Pablo Saavedra-Alessandri Secretary