SEPARATE CONCURRING OPINION OF JUDGE SERGIO GARCÍA RAMÍREZ ON THE JUDGMENT ON REPARATIONS IN THE TRUJILLO OROZA VS. BOLIVIA CASE 1. I concur with my colleagues of the Court in signing the Judgment on Reparations in the Trujillo Oroza vs. Bolivia Case. In my opinion, the Court is competent, as has been stated, to hear and decide on the facts to which the judgment on the merits and this judgment on reparations refer, as well as to determine the corresponding juridical consequences, in the terms set forth in the considerations I express in this Concurring Vote. 2. The term facts refers to: a) conduct that constitutes a violation and that reaches its end or concludes at the very moment when the respective act or omission takes place; b) situations constituted by various acts that occur over time, with discontinuity between one and another; and c) uninterrupted activities that persistently breach rights enshrined in the Convention. To illustrate this concept, it is relevant to invoke the classification of crimes by order of conduct. The former encompasses three categories recognized in view of the moment at which the crime is consummated: instantaneous, b) continued, and c) continuing or permanent. 3. Bolivia has been a party to the American Convention on Human Rights since July 19, 1979, and it recognized the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on July 27, 1993 (para. 1 of the Judgment on reparations). It is understood that these acts, which produce the juridical consequences inherent to their nature, were carried out in observance of the norms and procedures of and with intervention by the bodies that domestic legislation establishes to this end. Since those dates, there have been juridical effects that are inherent to participation in the Convention and to acceptance of contentious jurisdiction, respectively; in other words, for facts in violation of the provisions of the Convention to be heard and for their juridical consequences to be determined. The State did not establish any conditions regarding the time during which its acceptance of jurisdiction would be in effect. 4. It is appropriate to recall that the American Convention has no specific provisions regarding its entrance into effect, in terms of time, with respect to a State party. For this, it is relevant to take into account the provisions of Article 28 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (Vienna, May 23, 1969) in this regard. Said precept states: “Unless a different intention appears from the treaty or is otherwise established, its provisions do not bind a party in relation to any act or fact which took place or any situation which ceased to exist before the date of the entry into force of the treaty with respect to that party.” This must obviously be in a “suitable way” to commit the State. 5. It is also necessary to consider that under the terms of Article 62(3) of the American Convention, the Court is competent (that is, objectively capable procedurally to exercise its jurisdiction in contentious matters) to hear cases pertaining to interpretation and application of this treaty, “inasmuch as the States party in the case have accepted or recognize said competence...” In other words, competence exists generally –and is specifically exercised, in connection with a specific matter- when it is recognized by the respondent State, and only becomes actualized once that acceptance has taken place, and only with respect to facts that occurred after its entry into effect. On the other hand, it does not encompass facts that happened before the acceptance of jurisdiction entered into effect.