2
the Commission in certain cases, in a truly exceptional way and under the terms
analyzed by the case-law of the Court itself. I do not intend to reproduce or
analyze this issue, about which the Tribunal has ruled in some orders, now.
II.
Expressions of the State in an attempt for friendly solutions
6. It has been pointed out that the State may put forward, in the proceeding before
the Inter-American Commission, considerations and suggestions leading to reach
a friendly solution in the dispute, and that those consideration and suggestions
should not be a detriment to the case in case the intended solution does not
succeed and the case is brought to the Court. If any expression of the State,
leading to favor the settlement between the parties, is understood as something
that necessarily produces unfavorable effects on the State in the proceeding
before the Court, we would be discouraging the extra-judicial solution or the
contentious case.
7. Of course, it is desirable that those cases involving human rights, such as others,
find a solution by means of an understanding between the parties, when this is
possible and adequate on the basis of the effective protection of the human
rights, taking into account the nature of the violations, the remedies provided
and the interest and willingness of the litigants. It does not spring from this,
however, that the statements made by the State during the conduct of the
proceeding before the Commission are ineffective in the proceeding before the
Court. It is essential to reconciliate the need to encourage consensual solutions
and the relevance of acknowledging the value of, according to their own
characteristics, the acts of confession or recognition of responsibility made by the
State.
8. Based on the foregoing, it is necessary to differentiate the several hypotheses put
forward in this regard, avoiding general considerations that may result
impertinent. This is how the Inter-American has done it in the judgment to which
this opinion refer, in order to be clear about the value of the steps taken by the
State at the procedural stage that we now analyze, to favor the protection of
human rights and the reasonable settlement of disputes.
9. The Court makes a distinction between actions that lead, due to its nature and
form, to the admission of facts - which would constitute a true confession-, and
the recognition of responsibilities, and those other actions that only intend to
favor the compromise and moderate or eliminate the dispute. In the last case,
the expressions of the State shall not be detrimental to it if the conflict is brought
to the Court.
10. Instead, whenever there is an action that materially entails, in a clear and
sufficient way, the admission of an illegal act or the recognition of the
responsibility that derives therefrom, the action shall produce the corresponding
natural effects, to the detriment of the State. As a consequence, the State shall
not be able to argue that the confession or recognition it made lacks truthfulness
or efficacy, in the understanding that such confession or recognition only formed
part of a “strategy” destined to expedite the solution agreed on.
III.
Reasonable time