SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE A.A. CANÇADO TRINDADE 1. I vote in favour of the present Judgment on reparations which the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights has just adopted in the case of Trujillo Oroza versus Bolivia. A consideration of the Court developed in this Judgment concerns the basis of the jurisdiction of the Court in contentious matters, in the context of the concrete case. I refer to paragraph 72, which points out that "The Court bears in mind that some of the facts of this case are prior to the dates of the ratification of the American Convention and of the recognition of the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on the part of the State. Nevertheless, the Court observes likewise that the respondent State did not object that the facts of the case as a whole be considered, in respect of the totality of the period ranging 1971 and the date of the present Judgment. It is also to be pointed out that it is worth keeping in mind that the Constitutional Tribunal of Bolivia indicated that `the illegal deprivation of freedom or illegal detentions (...) is a permanent delict' and that `the prescription of the permanent delicts ought to start counting as from the day when the execution of the delict ceases'. In virtue of the aforementioned, the Court will examine and will decide on the continuing situation of the forced disappearance of Mr. José Carlos Trujillo Oroza and the consequences of such situation". This point leads me to some reflections, which I feel obliged to express in this Separate Opinion, as the foundation of my position on the matter. I do so, moreover, given the importance with which the question is endowed for the evolution itself of the case-law of the Court in this respect. 2. In the present case Trujillo Oroza, the State manifested before the Court, in the public hearing of 25 January 2000, that "the Government of the Republic of Bolivia formally recognizes the responsibility for the facts"1. In doing so, the State recognized all the facts expressed in the complaint, and not only the facts subsequent to the date in which it became Party to the American Convention on Human Rights (19.07.1979) or to the date in which it recognized the compulsory jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court (27.07.1993). 3. The Inter-American Court, on its turn, in the Judgment on the merits of the case, of 26 January 2000, considered "admitted the facts" expressed in paragraph 2 of its Judgment, that is, all the facts as from the detention of the victim, on 23.12.1971, and further considered that the controversy between the State and the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights "as to the facts from which the present case originated" had ceased. The Court considered the forced disappearance of the victim in its integrality, as a whole. This was possible as a result of the positive posture taken by the State2 in search of a solution for the concrete case. 1 . Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR), Transcripción de la Audiencia Pública Celebrada el 25 de enero de 2000 en el Caso Trujillo Oroza, p. 5, and cf. p. 3 (internal circulation). 2 . Thus acknowledged in the present Judgment (par. 118).