PARTIALLY DISSENTING OPINION BY JUDGE ALBERTO PÉREZ PÉREZ CASE OF CRUZ SÁNCHEZ ET AL. V. PERU 1. The Court judged that Eduardo Nicolás Cruz Sánchez had been arbitrarily deprived of his life in violation of Article 4.1 of the American Convention, read in conjunction with Article 1(1) (para. 319 of the judgment). It also found several violations against the family members present in this case as alleged victims (paras. 431 and 450). 2. In paragraphs 451 and following, the Court recalled and reasserted its case law, according to which “(p)ursuant to the provisions of Article 63(1) of the American Convention, the Court has held that every violation of an international obligation which results in harm creates a duty to make adequate reparation, and that this provision reflects a customary norm that constitutes one of the fundamental principles of contemporary international law on State responsibility.” 3. However, in paragraphs 483 to 485, the Court decided not to award any compensatory indemnification for nonpecuniary damage, as it judged “that, in the instant case, it is not pertinent to order the payment of financial compensation for nonpecuniary damage for the violations of the right to life in injury of Eduardo Nicolás Cruz Sánchez, bearing in mind that this judgment constitutes, per se, sufficient redress for such damage, and considering that reparations concerning the investigation and the publication of this judgment that have already been ordered, provide due reparation under the terms of Article 63(1) of the American Convention” (para. 483); “that, with respect to Edgar Odón Cruz Acuña, the measures of rehabilitation awarded in the judgment provide sufficient, appropriate redress to compensate for the damage done to his personal integrity (para. 484), and furthermore, “concerning the harm derived from violation of Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention in injury of Florentín Peceros Farfán, Nemecia Pedraza de Peceros, Jhenifer Solanch Peceros Quispe, Herma Luz Cueva Torres and Edgar Odón Cruz Acuña in varying measure as a consequence of the facts that were upheld in the instant case, [...] the Court holds that the present judgment is in itself a form of compensation and moral satisfaction for the victims and their relatives. The reparations involving investigation and publication [ordered in this judgment] also provide due compensation under the terms of Article 63(1) of the American Convention” (para. 485). 4. In my view, the Court should have awarded compensatory indemnification for nonpecuniary damage caused by violation of Article 4(1) of the American Convention for arbitrarily taking the life of Eduardo Nicolás Cruz Sánchez and for violating the rights of his family members, as established in the relevant sections of the judgment. There is no 1