CONCURRING OPINON OF JUDGE SERGIO GARCÍA RAMÍREZ RELATING TO THE JUDGMENT OF THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE CASE OF VALLE JARAMILLO ET AL. OF NOVEMBER 27, 2008 1. In its judgment of November 27, 2008, in the case of Valle Jaramillo et al. (Colombia), the Inter-American Court of Human Rights made considerable progress in formulating criteria on relevant matters relating to criminal proceedings, from a human rights perspective, which it had previously approached restrictively and which it is now examining in greater detail and depth. They relate, above all, to two issues: (a) the definition of the so-called “reasonable time” for concluding the proceedings and the definition of certain situations relating to this; an issue that has frequently been submitted to the consideration of the Inter-American Court in relation to the delays that occur in domestic proceedings, and (b) the victim’s role in ordinary criminal proceedings; an important issue when we consider that the violations perpetrated give rise to the State’s obligation to provide justice, which introduces a new scenario involving actions and rights that are of vital interest to the victims of those violations. I. Reasonable time 2. Regarding reasonable time, up until now, the Inter-American Court had followed the criteria adopted by the European Court of Human Rights, which evidently provides a useful frame of reference with regard to the issues that must be considered in relation to the reasonableness of the time invoked in the context of due process of law. On this question, both Courts cite three relevant factors: the complexity of the matter being tried, the activity of the court hearing the case, and the procedural conduct of the litigant. In other words, one element relating to the very nature of the facts being heard and of the proceedings during which this consideration takes place; and two elements relating to the conduct of the procedural subjects (or, more broadly, of the subjects who intervene in the proceedings, because, in this regard, acts or omissions of the Police or of the Attorney General’s Office (Ministerio Público) could be involved, in addition to those of the court). I have examined these aspects in several separate and concurring opinions relating to judgments handed down by the Inter-American Court, in the terms I will cite below. 3. The Inter-American Court does not usually provide its own definition of this determinant information for weighing the reasonableness of the time in a case. In my separate opinion in the case of López Álvarez (Honduras), which concluded with a judgment of February 1, 2006, I attempted to describe it as set out below. With regard to the complexity of the matter, the Court, which verifies the compatibility between the State’s conduct and the provisions of the Convention – in other words, it is the organ that monitors the “conventionality” – should explore the de jure and de facto circumstances of the case. The legal analysis may be relatively simple, once the facts on which the litigation was based are established, but they can be extraordinarily complex and difficult to prove, and the collection of evidence may be prolonged or complicated, costly, hazardous or belated. The contrary may also occur: the relative clarity and simplicity of the facts, compared to acute difficulty in their legal assessment or definition; opposing opinions, changing case law, vague legislation, motives that can be understood in different ways or that differ. 4. When analyzing this issue, it also appears necessary to consider the number of briefs that are submitted during litigation. Often, not just one, but multiple briefs are submitted in a dispute, all of which must be examined and clarified. It is also necessary to take into consideration the number of participants mentioned in the briefs and in the procedural

Select target paragraph3