JOINT DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGES MANUEL E. VENTURA ROBLES AND EDUARDO FERRER MAC-GREGOR POISOT CASE OF BREWER CARÍAS v. VENEZUELA JUDGMENT OF MAY 26, 2014 (Preliminary objections) 1. This dissenting opinion in the case of Brewer Carías v. Venezuela is issued for the reasons to be described below, based on which the authors are in disagreement with the operative paragraphs of the Judgment adopted by a majority of four votes (hereinafter “the Judgment” or “the majority opinion”), in which the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Court” or “the Inter-American Court”) admits the preliminary objection filed by the State concerning the failure to exhaust domestic remedies and, thus, orders that the file of this case be archived. 2. We observe with concern that, for the first time in its history, the Court does not proceed to examine the merits of a litigation because it finds admissible a preliminary objection of failure to exhaust domestic remedies, 1 related in this case to Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the American Convention,” “the Pact of San José de Costa Rica” or “the ACHR”). In addition, as analyzed below, the Judgment includes some considerations that, in our opinion, are not only contrary to the Inter-American Court’s case law, but also represent a dangerous precedent for the interAmerican system for the protection of human rights as a whole, to the detriment of the right of access to justice, and the individual. 2 3. The special interest that this case has aroused in civil society should also be stressed, since 33 amicus curiae briefs have been received from renowned international jurists, as well as from legal and professional institutions and non-governmental organizations and associations of the Americas and Europe, concerning different issues relating to the litigation, 3 such as the rule of law, judicial guarantees, due process of law, judicial independence, the provisional nature of the judges, and the practice of law. All 1 On only three previous occasions in the more than 26 years of its contentious jurisdiction, the InterAmerican Court has not examined the merits of the dispute submitted to it for different reasons: the first, owing to the expiry of the time frame for the presentation of the application by the Inter-American Commission (Case of Cayara v. Peru. Preliminary objections. Judgment of February 3, 1993. Series C No. 14); the second, due to the discontinuance of the action, decided by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (Case of Maqueda v. Argentina. Preliminary objections. Order of January 17, 1995. Series C No. 18), and third, owing to the lack of competence ratione temporis of the Inter-American Court (Case of Alfonso Martín del Campo Dodd v. Mexico. Preliminary objections. Judgment of September 3, 2004. Series C No. 113). 2 It should not be forgotten that the international system must be understood as a whole, an essential principle indicated by Article 29 of the Pact of San José, which imposes a framework of protection that always gives preference to the most favorable interpretation, which constitutes the “cornerstone of the protection of the whole inter-American system.” Cf. Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 23, 2009. Series C No. 209, para. 24. 3 The names of the persons, institutions and associations that submitted amici curiae, appear in para. 9 of the Judgment.