DISSENTING REASONED OPINION OF THE
JUDGE RICARDO C. PÉREZ MANRIQUE
INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
CASE OF MINA CUERO v. ECUADOR
JUDGMENT OF SEPTEMBER 7, 2022
(Preliminary objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs)
I. INTRODUCTION
1.
The judgment declares the violation of articles 8(1), 8(2), 8(2)(b), and 8(2)(c),
23(1)(c), 25 and 26 of the American Convention on Human Rights, in relation to the
obligations to respect and guarantee the rights established in Article 1(1) of the same
international instrument, as well as the right recognized in Article 8(2)(h) of the American
Convention on Human Rights, in relation to the obligation to adopt domestic legal provisions
established in Article 2 of the same international instrument. The international responsibility
of Ecuador arose from the mentioned violations observed in the disciplinary process that
culminated in the dismissal of Mr. Mina Cuero from his position as a police officer.
2.
By means of this opinion, I concur with the provisions of the judgment, but being the
first decision that the Court renders with its new composition, I consider it necessary to refer
to the foundations of my position regarding the justiciability of economic, social, and cultural
rights ESCER. I reiterate what was stated in previous opinions and offer some reflections on
the specific case. Finally, I shall address an issue that, in my opinion, should have been
considered by the majority regarding the violation of the principle of ne bis in idem.
3. This opinion is structured as follows: 1) Justiciability of ESCER; (2) The violation of the
victim's political rights; (3) Considerations on the application to the case of the principle ne
bis in idem, and (4) Conclusions.
II. DIRECT JUSTICIABILITY OF ESCER
4.
The justiciability of ESCER has been a subject of discussion in legal doctrine and in the
Inter-American Court of Human Rights, and there have been at least three positions on this
matter, as I mentioned, among others, in my concurrent vote in the judgment of November
21, 2019, in the case of the National Association of Discharged and Retired Employees of the
National Tax Administration Superintendence (ANCEJUB-SUNAT) v. Peru.1
5. The first position states that the analysis of individual ESCER violations lacks "direct justiciability." This does not mean that they are not justiciable, but rather they are justiciable in
an "indirect" manner. In other words, to be able to address a violation of these
1
Cf. Case of the National Association of Discharged and Retired Employees of the National Tax Administration
Superintendence (ANCEJUB-SUNAT) v. Peru. Preliminary objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of
November 21, 2019. Series C No. 394.
1