JOINT CONCURRING OPINION OF JUDGES
A.A. CANÇADO TRINDADE AND A. ABREU BURELLI
1.
In voting in favour of the present Judgment on reparations delivered by the
Inter-American Court of Human Rights in the Castillo Páez versus Peru case, we see
it fit to refer to our considerations in our Joint Concurring Opinion (paragraphs 1-4)
in the Judgment on reparations in the Loayza Tamayo versus Peru case, of this
same date. We expressed therein our understanding, of equal incidence in the
present case 1, that contemporary doctrine on the matter of reparations for
violations of human rights has established the relationship between the right to
reparation, the right to truth and the right to justice (which starts with the access
to justice), - rights the realization of which is hindered by measures of domestic law
(such as the so-called self-proclaimed amnesties pertaining to violations of human
rights) which lead to a situation of impunity.
2.
That doctrinal evolution allows us to sustain that such measures are
incompatible with the duty of States to investigate those violations, rendering it
impossible the vindication of the rights to truth and to the realization of justice, as
well as, consequently, of the right to obtain reparation. One cannot thereby deny
the close link between the persistence of impunity and the hindering of the very
duties of investigation and of reparation, as well as of the guarantee of nonrepetition of the harmful facts.
3.
The aforementioned measures are, moreover, incompatible with the general
obligation of States to respect and to secure respect for the protected human
rights, guaranteeing the free and full exercise of these latter 2. States are under the
duty to eliminate those measures (which constitute obstacles to the realization of
human rights), in conformity with the other general obligation to harmonize their
domestic law with the international norms of protection 3, - such as warned, half a
decade ago, by the II World Conference of Human Rights 4. There is pressing need
that those doctrinal advances become duly reflected in the development of the
international case-law on the matter.
Antônio A. Cançado Trindade
Judge
Alirio Abreu-Burelli
Judge
Manuel E. Ventura-Robles
Secretary
1.
As to the duty of the State to take action in the domestic ambit, in the investigation of the facts
and in the sanction of those responsible for the delicts committed to the detriment of Mr. Ernesto Rafael
Castillo Páez; cf. paragraphs 99-104 of this Judgment.
2.
In the terms of Article 1(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights.
3.
In the terms of Article 2 of the American Convention on Human Rights.
4.
Cf. paragraph 60 (of part II) of the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action (1993), the
main document adopted by the aforementioned World Conference.