SEPARATE CONCURRING OPINION OF AD-HOC JUDGE GUSTAVO ZAFRA ROLDAN I fully concur with the Judgment of the Inter-American Court in the “Mapiripán Massacre” case. I add the following remarks: 1) In the cases in which the State of Colombia and the victims have reached a settlement under Administrative Law venue, these settlements, based on the principle of good faith, must be taken into account. a) If the settlement has been partial or total, determination of the amount to be paid for reparations ordered by the Inter-American Court must deduct what the State effectively recognized and paid in the administrative law proceedings. b) I am aware that the criteria used by the Inter-American Court to establish comprehensive redress are not exactly the same as those followed by the State Council [Consejo de Estado]. However, reparations must respect the principle of good faith, as well as the criterion of the Inter-American Court -which coincides with that of the State Council- that reparations must not constitute unjustified enrichment. 2) On the other hand, the strictly humanitarian aid provided by the State of Colombia, consisting of groceries, household utensils, transportation, and subsidies, cannot be considered compensation for the unlawful damage caused by the State to the victims. a) The State’s obligation to provide humanitarian aid derives from the principles of solidarity, International Humanitarian Law, and the duties of the social State based on the rule of law. b) On the other hand, the obligation to provide reparation for the damage caused by violation of the Rights to Life and to Humane Treatment, and other rights that were abridged, derives from non-compliance by the State with its role as guarantor, which constitutes the unlawful damage. c) If the former and the latter are confused, we would find ourselves in the extreme situation of the State making demands on the victims for not exercising its own role as guarantor. d) These humanitarian aids, all the more so, must not be confused with the obligation to provide reparation for the internationally unlawful act of the State, for which this Court has found it to be responsible, and which is the basis for the awards made in fairness in favor of the victims. 3) With regard to the figure of forty-nine violations of the Right to Life which has been accepted by the parties, and given the impossibility of submitting new evidence other than the last identification of twenty three made by the Office of the Government Attorney [Fiscalía General de la Nación], clearly this poses a very complex problem to solve for execution of the Judgment.

Select target paragraph3