CONCURRING OPINION OF JUDGE EDUARDO VIO GROSSI
ORDER OF THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
OF JUNE 26, 2012
PROVISIONAL MEASURES REGARDING THE REPUBLIC OF COLOMBIA
CASE OF THE 19 TRADESMEN v. COLOMBIA
This Concurring Opinion is issued together with the Order indicated in the title, hereinafter the
Order, despite the fact that said Order would be in contradiction with the terms established in
dissenting and concurring opinions issued in cases in which provisional measures were also
adopted after the delivery of the final judgment in the respective cases 1.
However, we proceed in this manner bearing in mind that, on the one hand, in relation to this
case, an opinion in favor of such measures has been already issued 2, though before the
opinions already mentioned and, on the other hand, in the Order with which I concur, the
rescission of the measures still continues in force, and the measures are only valid with respect
to some persons. But, we proceed in this manner also taking into account that in a judgment
delivered, during this same period of sessions, in another case 3, it was decided that the
provisional measures ordered by the Court are part of the reparations ordered, a judgment
that, then, may imply a consistency between the position sustained until now by the Court and
the one expressed in the dissenting and concurring opinions before mentioned.
Eduardo Vio Grossi
Judge
Pablo Saavedra Alessandri
Secretary
1
Dissenting Opinions regarding the Orders related to “Provisional Measures regarding the Republic of Colombia, Case of
Gutierrez Soler V. Colombia”, of June 30, 2011; “Provisional Measures regarding the United Mexican States, Case of
Rosendo Cantu et al V. Mexico”, of July 1, 2011; and “Provisional Measures regarding the Republic of Honduras, Case of
Kawas Fernandez V. Honduras”, of July 5, 2011; Record of Complaint [Constancia de Queja] in relation to the same
Orders of August 17, 2011; Concurring Opinion, Case of Torres Millacura et al V. Argentina, Judgment of August 26,
2011, Merits, Reparations and Legal Costs; Concurring Opinion, Case of the Barrios Family V. Venezuela, Judgment of
November 24, 2011, Merits, Reparations and Legal Costs; Dissenting Opinion, Order on Provisional Measures, Matter of
Millacura Llaipén regarding Argentina, of November 25, 2011; and Concurring Opinion in Order related to “Provisional
Measures regarding the United Mexican States, Case of Fernandez Ortega et al”, of February 20, 2012.
2
Order “Provisional Measures regarding the Republic of Colombia, Case of the 19 Tradesmen V. Colombia”, of August
26, 2010.
3
Judgment in the case of “Kichwa de Sarayaku Indigenous Community V. Ecuador”, Merits, Reparations and Legal
Costs.