Concurring opinion Ramón Cadena Rámila Judge ad hoc My vote is in favor, fully, of the instant judgment adopted by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in the Case of the Las Dos Erres Massacre; this is another advance in the construction of the Inter-American Court’s jurisprudence. The characteristics of the Las Dos Erres Massacre render it one of the gravest cases that the Inter-American Court has heard in its history, not only because of the cruelty of the facts and the extreme violence carried out by the Guatemalan Army against women and children, but also because of their impunity. The transcendental issues examined by the Court evoke certain thoughts which I feel obligated to assert in this Concurring Opinion. 1. International Humanitarian Law: The gravity of the facts of the Las Dos Erres case is evident. Since International Humanitarian Law is of a compulsory nature, its rules constitute absolute commitments that need to be fulfilled by all States without exceptions. There are no juridical arguments, much less political, that can oppose the Geneva Conventions to justify non-compliance. This branch of international law is no more than a reaffirmation of the oldest customary rules that were developed and completed when the corresponding codification was made. We must then, in the first place, refer to the international principles and customs that represent the minimum humanity applicable at all times, in all places and circumstances, valid even for the States who are not party to the Conventions, since they express the customs of the towns and behavior that must be observed by the States for internal and international armed conflicts. It is important to cite the famous clause by Frederic de Martens which can be read in the St Petersburg Declaration: “In the cases not foreseen in the Conventions, civilians and combatants continue to be under the protection and realm of the principles of international law, as they result from the established uses of the principles of humanity and of the demands of public conscience.” This phrase has shown its profound sense since 1899, to the extent that it is reproduced in the Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions of 1977. It constitutes a universally accepted formula to solve cases not foreseen in international laws and conventions of a humanitarian type. As in all branches of law, humanitarian law has fundamental principles from which the other notions derive. In the instant case, the Court accurately cites the Commission for Historical Clarification, since it is useful to base the responsibility of the State of Guatemala as follows: “It is within this context that the Las Dos Erres Massacre took place, within a State policy and a pattern of grave human rights violations.” According to the CEH, “in general, from the human rights violations and the violations of International Humanitarian Law, derives the unavoidable responsibility of the State of Guatemala.” (paragraph 82 of this judgment, emphasis added.) Subsequently, it indicates that “within the context of an internal armed conflict, the State’s obligations regarding children are defined in Article 4(3) of the Additional Protocol II to the Geneva Conventions.” This Article establishes that: “children will be provided with the proper care and aid that they require, and, particularly: … b) timely measures will be taken to facilitate the reunion of families that were