17 45. In mi Concurrent Opinion in the first adjudicatory case that fully proceeded under the new fourth Rules of the Court, that of the Five Pensioners v. Peru (Judgment of February 28, 2003), I considered, along the same line of thought, that "In fact, the assertion of those juridical personality and capacity constitutes the truly revolutionary legacy of the evolution of the international legal doctrine in the second half of the 20th century. The time has come to overcome the classic limitations of the legitimatio ad causam in International Law, which have so much hindered its progressive development towards the construction of a new jus gentium. An important role is here being exercised by the impact of the proclamation of human rights in the international legal order, in the sense of humanizing this latter: those rights were proclaimed as 62 inherent to every human being, irrespectively of any circumstances . Statements in this sense are to be found in recent precedents of this Court, not only adjudicatory, but advisory as well, for example its Advisory Opinion No. 17 on the Juridical Condition and Human Rights of the Child (of August 28, 2002), which went along the line of affirming the legal emancipation of the human being by emphasizing the consolidation of children as persons before the law, as true subjects in law and not simple objects of protection; that was the Leitmotiv permeating all the Advisory Opinion No. 17 of the Court63. 46. Before that, the aforementioned adjudicatory leading case of the “Street Children “ (Villagrán Morales et al.) v Guatemala, 1999-2001) revealed the importance of direct access of individuals to international jurisdiction, enabling them to vindicate their rights against the acts of arbitrary power, and giving an ethical content both to the internal public law rules and to those of international law. The relevance of such right appeared clearly in the proceedings of that historical case, wherein the mothers of the murdered minors, as poor and bereft as their children, accessed international jurisdiction and appeared before the Court64 and, thanks to the Judgments on the merits and reparations of this Court65, that protected them, they could at least regain faith in human Justice66. 47. Four years later, the case of the Juvenile Reeducation Institute v. Paraguay showed once more, as I pointed out in my Separate Opinion (paras. 3-4), that the human being, even in the most adverse of conditions, barges in as a subject of International Human Rights Law, endowed with full international legal and procedural capacity. The Judgment of the Court in the latter case duly recognized the high relevance of the historical amendments introduced by the Court in its current Rules 62 Not so long ago I recalled what I had purported then in my Concurring Opinion (para. 7) on Provisional Protection Measures in the case of two Children and Adolescents Deprived of their Freedom in the Tatuapé FEBEM Complex v. Brasil (Order of November 30, 2005). 63 . And eloquently affirmed in paragraphs 41 and 28 therein. 64 . Public Hearings of January 28-29, 1999 and March 12, 2001 before this Court. 65 . Of November 19, 1999 and of May 26, 2001, respectively. 66 . In my extensive Separate Opinion (paras. 1-43) in that case (Judgment on reparations, of May 26, 2001), I made precisely that point, besides another one that has been so far practically unexplored by interntional legal scholars and case law, to wit: the triad of victimization, human suffering and victim rehabilitation.