PARTIALLY DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE EDUARDO VIO GROSSI,
INTER-AMERIAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
CASE OF LAGOS DEL CAMPO v. PERU,
JUDGMENT OF AUGUST 31, 2017,
(Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs)
INTRODUCTION
This partially dissenting opinion is issued1 with regard to the above-mentioned judgment,2
because the author disagrees with the reference it makes to Article 263 of the American
Convention on Human Rights4 as grounds for the fifth5 and sixth operative paragraphs,6 in which
it declares that “[t]he State is responsible for the violation of the right to job security” and “the
right to freedom of association.”
a. Preliminary observations
This opinion is evidently provided with full and absolute respect for the decision taken in this case
by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights,7 which must therefore be complied with.
Consequently, this text should in no way be interpreted as detracting from the legitimacy of the
decision taken in this case. However, this opinion is issued not only in the exercise of a right, but
1
Art. 66(2) of the Convention: “If the judgment does not represent in whole or in part the unanimous opinion of
the judges, any judge shall be entitled to have his dissenting or separate opinion attached to the judgment.”
Art. 24(3) of the Statutes of the Court: “The decisions, judgments and opinions of the Court shall be delivered in public
session, and the parties shall be given written notification thereof. In addition, the decisions, judgments and opinions
shall be published, along with judges' individual votes and opinions and with such other data or background information
that the Court may deem appropriate.”
Art. 65(2) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure: “Any Judge who has taken part in the consideration of a case is entitled to
append a separate reasoned opinion to the judgment, concurring or dissenting. These opinions shall be submitted within
a time limit to be fixed by the President so that the other Judges may take cognizance thereof before notice of the
judgment is served. Said opinions shall only refer to the issues covered in the judgment.”
Hereafter, each time that a provision is cited without indicating to which legal instrument it corresponds, it shall be
understood that it is from the American Convention on Human Rights.
2
Hereinafter, la Judgment.
“Progressive Development. The States Parties undertake to adopt measures, both internally and through
international cooperation, especially those of an economic and technical nature, with a view to achieving progressively,
subject to available resources, by legislation or other appropriate means, the full realization of the rights derived from the
economic, social, educational, scientific, and cultural standards set forth in the Charter of the Organization of American
States as amended by the Protocol of Buenos Aires.”
3
Hereinafter, the Organization of American States will be referred to as the OAS.
4
Hereinafter, the Convention.
“The State is responsible for the violation of the right to job security, recognized in Article 26 of the American
Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1), 13, 8 and 16 of this instrument, to the detriment of del Campo, pursuant to
paragraphs 133 to 154 and 166 of this judgment.”
5
“The State is responsible for the violation of the right to freedom of association, recognized in Articles 16 and 26
of the American Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1), 13 and 8 of this instrument, to the detriment of del Campo,
pursuant to paragraphs 155 to 163 of this judgment.”
6
7
Hereinafter, the Court.