CONCURRING OPINION OF JUDGE CECILIA MEDINA I agree with the Court’s decision that Articles 5(1), 22 and 21 of the American Convention have been violated, all in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, and also Articles 8(1) and 25 of the Convention. Nevertheless, I have prepared this opinion because I consider that, in the judgment, the Court failed to declare that Article 4 had also been violated, based on the State’s failure to comply with its obligation to investigate the deprivation of life that occurred owing to the massacre that took place in Moiwana in 1986. Furthermore, it did not note that Article 5 had been violated, also due to the State’s failure to comply with its obligation to investigate these facts, but in relation to personal integrity.1 In my opinion, then, the omission of Article 4 left the violation of Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention unsubstantiated. First, I would like to establish the general premises for this position and, then, refer to the specific case that is the subject of this judgment. With regard to the general premises: 1. The American Convention establishes the obligation of the State to respect and guarantee the human rights recognized therein. The obligation to guarantee, which is relevant in this opinion, “is not exhausted by the existence of norms designed to make compliance with this obligation possible, but requires governmental conduct that ensures the genuine existence of an effective guarantee for the free and full exercise of human rights.”2 With these words, the Court establishes the notion that it is obligatory for the States Parties to implement actions designed to comply with this provision. Since the obligation to guarantee refers to specific rights, it is complied with in different ways according to the right that is the object of the guarantee. 2. In my opinion, and I believe that it is the Court’s case law as well, the obligation to investigate, which the Court has mentioned consistently in cases where violations of Articles 4 and 5 of the Convention have occurred, derives from the general obligation of the States Parties to guarantee these two rights – in other words, from Article 1(1) of the Convention read in conjunction with Articles 4 or 5 thereof. The grounds supporting this position can be found from the inception of the Court’s jurisprudence and have prevailed to date.3 3. Moreover, based on the above, it is evident that the obligation to investigate can only be demanded with regard to a substantive right that must be protected. The Court has regularly recognized the essential link between the obligation to guarantee, and consequently to investigate, and the respective right that must be guaranteed. 1 In the case of Article 5, in addition to the lack of investigation into violations of integrity that occurred during the massacre, there were other allegations regarding violations related to events that took place after the massacre, on which the Court did rule (see paras. 90 to 103) 2 Ibid, para. 167. 3 Cf. Case of Velásquez-Rodríguez. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, paras. 166 to 177.