bring a petition for precautionary measures to the Commission even before you have filed the case in the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. This is a very broad interpretation of its implied powers. States have not opposed this interpretation, so there is a consistent practice. Opposition comes from, for example, the United States under the American Declaration, stating that there is no jurisdiction of the Commission on that softer regime. The United States has not ratified the American Convention. However, the practice of issuing protective measures beyond the existence of a case, is a very well-settled practice. there is an intrinsic relationship between international regimes and the publicity, the mobilization of information in order to signal: “Where do we have problems, in which countries?” The oral proceedings were happening in the Commission since the creation of the mechanism, but were strengthened with the creation of the Inter-American Court proceedings. So, once the Court was in place in 1980, the Commission and the new regulations allowed for more liberal use of oral proceedings in individual cases. The Commission had been holding hearings here in Washington, D.C., two times a year, and as soon as Internet was available, these new technologies allowed for the more efficient dissemination of information, including webcasting of the hearings through the Internet. This included not only cases and hearings in individual cases, but also in precautionary measures. So, there are several cases in which precautionary measures have been dealt with in the public scene using these technologies. I submit to you, and I think it is something that we could eventually discuss, that if we think about the object and purpose of a convention such as the American Convention, the traditional notion of interim measures being linked to the existence of a case may be appropriate in situations where there are two countries involved in inter-state litigation before the International Court of Justice. But, when you are talking about these public regimes, in which you are protecting human rights, the object and purpose is prevention which governs the interpretation of the powers of the organs that supervise implementation. And in that sense, it would be quite narrow to apply these measures, in the case of the Inter-American System, only when there is a case already filed. There are some dilemmas that, I think, have been solved in the case of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and, that having a viable case in terms of the American Convention would not be an adequate interpretation of the need to have quick action. I think it is an important reference regarding provisional measures in the [Committee against Torture] and the possibility of improving how you read the Convention, and how to re-craft the rules of procedure. On the other hand there is enforcement. Once the public is aware and sees the government and the parties talking about the situation that is probably occurring in real time, you may have a good possibility of preventing torture or arbitrary execution. I do accept that there are other situations in which you have to be very careful when you are using publicity because you could create problems, but again, you assess in which situations this can be useful and in which situations it should not be done. The Commission can refrain from publishing certain names to avoid this problem. This publicity is very important for enforcement and in the case of precautionary measures and provisional measures, it induces certain pressure on states to prevent irreparable damage. Case Study: Guantanamo Bay The last thing I want to comment on is one interesting example of how the Commission works and the possibility of the use of the mechanisms of the Commission and the famous Guantanamo measures of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. The United States has not ratified the American Convention, so it was only [subject] to the Commission’s procedures and interim measures—the Court was not available. These measures were adopted only a few months after September 11, 2001—less than a year. In March 2002, the first measures were issued by the Inter-American Commission, when information began to trickle in that there could be violations occurring in Guantanamo and elsewhere, and that people could be tortured. The Commission began to issue interim measures; there was no case then, only interim measures. It began to document and put pressure on the United States as the only mechanism available for individual complaints regarding this country. The Commission’s Responses and Enforcement From the perspective of the Inter-American Human Rights System, I can mention that prevention is a real-time exercise. In that sense, when someone is in danger of being tortured, how can you interpret your normative framework in order to be able to react in those situations to say, “I am a human rights body, I have to develop tools that would allow me to prevent torture in real time, one of the most dramatic situations that you can have in the violation of human rights”? In that sense, I think the [Inter-American] Commission [on Human Rights] has been very strategic in the use of press releases. The Inter-American Commission indeed has used its press release capabilities when there are certain situations. For example, on September 26, 2012, the Commission issued a press release concerning the acts of violence in a prison of the United States. It basically reacted to what was happening in real time, using this press release, not necessarily precautionary measures, but again with careful wording indicating the Commission is worried about what is happening in those particular settings. The Commission began to expand, modify, and amplify these measures throughout the years—2004, 2005, 2007, etc. The latest developments are very interesting because now some of the petitioners—the Center for Constitutional Rights and CEJIL (Center for Justice and International Law) here in Washington—have requested that the Commission begin to implement public hearings on the situation in Guantanamo, and to hold public hearings that are streamed through the Internet, and to One of the aspects of the latest developments that I think is very important in the practice of the Commission is oral proceedings. Oral proceedings have been crucial and if we step back and think about the enforcement of human rights law, I believe 17