SEPARATE OPINION CASE OF ZAMBRANO VÉLEZ ET AL. V. ECUADOR I have cast my vote to approve, unanimously, the present Judgment in the case of Zambrano Vélez et al. v. Ecuador, but I feel it necessary to clarify my position on an issue that has been considered during the deliberation of this case and in various cases before the Court over the last three years. It concerns the interpretation and application of Articles 8(1) and 25 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 1(1) and hence, the nature and purpose of the aforementioned provisions. Chapter I of the American Convention (General Obligations) refers to the obligations of the States Parties to this instrument: Article 1 (Obligation to Respect Rights) and Article 2 (Domestic Legal Effects). These are provisions of a general nature that permeate all the rights protected in Chapter II (Civil and Political Rights). These protected rights have their own ontological nature, they protect inherent juridical rights, which may be violated by a State Party as a result of certain acts that also entail the violation of Article 1(1) and, if applicable, Article 2, which as I have indicated are provisions of a general nature. This is not the nature of Articles 8 and 25, which also have a specific ontological content, but not as provisions of the Convention with general application and consequently, they can be violated by the State, together with other rights, always in conjunction with Article 1(1), which establishes the general obligation of the States Parties to respect and ensure the rights included in Chapter II of the Convention 1. Article 1(1) of the Convention establishes that: 1. The States Parties to this Convention undertake to respect the rights and freedoms recognized herein and to ensure to all persons subject to their jurisdiction the free and full exercise of those rights and freedoms, without any discrimination for reasons of race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, economic status, birth, or any other social condition. Article 8(1) indicates textually that: 1. Every person has the right to a hearing, with due guarantees and within a reasonable time, by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal, previously established by law, in the substantiation of any accusation of a criminal nature made against him or for the determination of his rights and obligations of a civil, labor, fiscal, or any other nature. While Article 25 states that: 1. Everyone has the right to simple and prompt recourse, or any other effective recourse, to a competent court or tribunal for protection against acts that violate his fundamental rights recognized by the constitution or laws of the state concerned or by this Convention, even though such violation may have been committed by persons acting in the course of their official duties. Cf. IACHR., Case of the Constitutional Court. Judgment of January 31, 2001. Series C No. 71; IACHR, Case of Cantos. Judgment of November 28, 2002. Series C No. 97; ICHR, Case of Almonacid-Arellano et al. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 154; ICHR, Case of the Dismissed Congressional Employees (Aguado-Alfaro et al.). Judgment of November 24, 2006. Series C No. 158. 1