next of kin, or legal representatives duly accredited) in all the stages of the proceedings before the Court.114 (Article 23) 138. In a historical perspective, this was the most transcendental modification introduced by the Rules of Procedure of the Court, a real turning point in the evolution of the Inter-American human rights protection system as a whole. In effect, the consolidation of the locus standi in judicio of individuals before the Court is an appropriate and logical development, since it does not seem reasonable to acknowledge rights in the international realm without the corresponding procedural capacity to vindicate them. Based on the right of individual petition the juridical mechanism of emancipation of the human being vis-à-vis the State itself is created115 for the protection of their rights within the sphere of International Human Rights Law, - an emancipation that comes in the end to attribute an ethical content to the regulations both of domestic public law and international law. 2. The Right to the Realization of Material Justice . 139. The understanding of the progress made by the Inter-American Court in its jurisprudential construction in recent years – which does not admit steps backwards – has been in the sense that the right to a fair trial (lato sensu) at national and international levels corresponds to a right of realization of material justice. As such, it not only covers formal access to a court or judge, but also to the guarantees of the due process of law, the right to a fair trial, reparations (as long as they are due), and the faithful and full execution of judgments. 140. According to the jurisprudence constante of the Court up to this date, the American Convention not only requires a formal right to a fair trial within domestic law (the right to an effective recourse under Article 25), but also in the realization itself of material justice. With this purpose in mind, the Convention determines the faithful observance of the right to a fair trial (Article 8), the latter taken lato sensu, covering the totality of the procedural requirements that must be observed so that all individuals can defend themselves adequately from any act arising from the State’s power that may affect their rights. 141. As I recalled in my extensive Concurring Opinion (paras. 35-43) in the case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre, regarding Colombia (Judgment of 01.31.2006), the Court has, up to this date, consistently related judicial protection (Article 25) with the right to a fair trial (Article 8).116 This continues to be its position up to this date, August 02, 2008, of . Regarding the legislative background of the third and fourth Rules of Procedure of the Court, cf. A.A. Cançado Trindade, "El Nuevo Reglamento de la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos (2000) y Su Proyección Hacia el Futuro: La Emancipación del Ser Humano como Sujeto del Derecho Internacional", in XXVIII Curso de Derecho Internacional Organizado por el Comité Jurídico Interamericano - OEA (2001) pp. 33-92. 114 . Cf. A.A. Cançado Trindade, "The Emancipation of the Individual from His Own State - The Historical Recovery of the Human Person as Subject of the Law of Nations", in Human Rights, Democracy and the Rule of Law - Liber Amicorum L. Wildhaber (eds. S. Breitenmoser et alii), Zürich/Baden-Baden, Dike/Nomos, 2007, pp. 151-171. 115 . 116 Cf., in this sense, its Judgments in the cases of Barrios Altos versus Peru (of 41