CONCURRING OPINION OF JUDGE C. MEDINA-QUIROGA In general, I concur with the decision of this Court regarding the human rights violations mentioned in the foregoing judgment. However, I have problems with the grounds on which the Court finds that Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention have been violated, as I already have had in previous cases. 1 A. As to Article 8: 1. Upon analyzing the violation of Articles 8 and 25, in whereas clause 78 of this judgment, the Court held that: “the victims of grave human rights violations and their next of kin, if applicable, have the right to know the truth. In consequence, the family members of victims and society as a whole must be informed regarding the circumstances of such violations. This right to the truth, once recognized, constitutes an important means of reparation. Therefore, in the instant case, the right to the truth creates an expectation that the State must fulfill to the benefit of the victims. This measure benefits not only the next of kin of the victims, but also society as a whole, because, by knowing the truth about such crimes, it can prevent them in the future.” 2 In whereas clause 80, the Court added that “[t]herefore, the relatives of the victims are entitled to, and the State has the duty to procure, an effective investigation by state authorities of the events involving the victim, proceedings against the alleged perpetrators and, if applicable, the appropriate penalties imposed to redress the damage sustained by said relatives.” 3 2. The Court quotes these two considerations in order to support its determination that Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention have been violated. 3. In my opinion and, I believe, as it repeatedly appears in the precedents of the Court, 4 the obligation to investigate does not derive from Articles 8 and 25, but from the general duty State Parties have to ensure the exercise of those substantive human rights that the Court considered to have been violated by the State. We can maintain that, in compliance with the general duty to guarantee such enjoyment, the State must protect the human rights of persons against third parties, either State authorities or private individuals, through legal provisions establishing the illegal nature of certain acts (undoubtedly, those that result in forced disappearance) and, after that conduct has been perpetrated, the law must be fully enforced to deter commission of acts of similar nature. Therefore, if the rule that has been infringed is a criminal provision, all those who 1 Partially Dissenting Opinion of Judge Cecilia Medina-Quiroga, Case of 19 Tradesmen. Judgment of July 05, 2004. Series C No. 109, and Partially Dissenting Opinion of Judge Cecilia Medina-Quiroga, Case of the Gómez-Paquiyauri Brothers. Judgment of July 08, 2004. Series C No. 110. 2 Cf. Case of 19 Tradesmen. Judgment of July 5, 2004. Series C No. 109, para. 259. 3 Cf. Case of the Serrano-Cruz Sisters. Judgment of March 01, 2005. Series C No. 120, para. 64; and Case of 19 Tradesmen, supra note 2, para. 184. 4 See on this matter, my concurring opinion in the Case of the Moiwana Village, also signed by Judge GarcíaRamírez and the case law precedents mentioned in the footnotes on pages 3 to 12.