adoption of the present Judgment of Interpretation in the case of the Castro Castro Prison. This is an area that does not allow backward steps; in the event that these occur in the future, those responsible for possible backward steps will have to respond for their unfounded alterations to the history of the Inter-American human rights protection system. 142. Moved by this concern – maybe a little ambitious – to avoid backward steps, I allow myself to once more warn here that the current Rules of Procedure of the Court, by granting direct access of the individual petitioners to the Inter-American Court – in the form of locus standi, to be followed by the jus standi117 - is part of an improvement and strengthening process of the protection mechanism under the American Convention. The next step in this line of evolution must consist, as I have been stating for many years, in a Protocol of Reforms to the American Convention on Human Rights,118 in order to include in it, and therefore consolidate, the regulatory advances already made, and more. 143. With this purpose in mind I prepared, by designation of my peers, as rapporteur and President of the Court, and I presented to the Organization of American States (OAS), in May 2001, my Report named Bases para un Proyecto de Protocolo a la Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos, para Fortalecer Su Mecanismo de Protección.119 Since then said Report has invariably marked presence in the agenda of the 03.14.2001, paras. 47-49), Las Palmeras versus Colombia (0f 12.06.2001, paras. 48-66), Baena Ricardo et al. versus Panama (of 02.02.2001, paras. 119-143), Myrna Mack Chang versus Guatemala (of 11.25.2003, paras. 162-218), Maritza Urrutia versus Guatemala (of 11.27.2003, paras. 107-130), 19 Tradesmen versus Colombia (of 07.05.2004, paras. 159-206), Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers versus Peru (of 07.08.2004, paras. 137-156), Serrano Cruz Sisters versus El Salvador (of 03.01.2005, paras. 52-107), Caesar versus Trinidad and Tobago (of 03.11.2005, paras. 103-117), Moiwana Community versus Suriname (of 06.15.2005, paras. 139-167), Yakye Axa Indigenous Community versus Paraguay (of 06.17.2005, paras. 55-119), Fermín Ramírez versus Guatemala (of 06.20.2005, paras. 58-83), Yatama versus Paraguay (of 06.23.2005, paras. 145-177), The Girls Yean and Bosico versus Dominican Republic (of 09.08.2005, para. 201), the Mapiripán Massacre versus Colombia (of 09.15.2005, para. 193-241), Gómez Palomino versus Peru (of 11.22.2005, paras. 72-86), Palamara Iribarne versus Chile (of 11.22.2005, paras. 120-189). The same position has been assumed by the Court in its Judgments in the case itself of the Pueblo Bello Massacre versus Colombia (of 01.31.2006), as well as in the cases of López Álvarez versus Honduras (of 02.01.2006), of the Ituango Massacres versus Colombia (of 07.01.2006), and of Ximenes Lopes versus Brazil (of 07.04.2006). . Cf., in this regard, A.A. Cançado Trindade, El Acceso Directo del Individuo a los Tribunales Internacionales de Derechos Humanos, Bilbao, Universidad de Deusto, 2001, pp. 9-104. 117 . 118 In the light of Article 77(1) of the American Convention. . A.A. Cançado Trindade, Bases para un Proyecto de Protocolo a la Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos, para Fortalecer Su Mecanismo de Protección, tomo II, 2a. ed., San José de Costa Rica, CtIADH, 2003, pp. 3-64, and cf. pp. 65-1015. There I recommended amendments to Articles 50(2), 51(1), 59, 65, 68, 75, and 77 of the American Convention, and also to Article 62, in order to make the jurisdiction of the Court (in contentious cases) automatically compelling for all the States Parties to the Convention, not admitting any type of restrictions, without the need of an additional 119 42