REASONED CONCURRING OPINION OF JUDGE ALIRIO ABREU BURELLI When adding my vote to the other Judges of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, on the judgment of the Myrna Mack Chang vs. Guatemala Case, I would like to submit, separately, the following considerations: I Based on what was narrated on the Judgment, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights claimed, in its application, that the State of Guatemala is responsible for an arbitrary deprivation of the right to life of Myrna Mack, since her murder, perpetrated on September 11, 1990, was a consequence of a military intelligence operation arising from a previous and careful plan by the high command of the Chief of Staff. Said plan aimed at, in the first place, disguising the abettors and perpetrators of the murder, obstructing the police investigation, and leaving the murder as much as possible immersed in impunity. The Commission added that the State has not made used of all the available means to undertake a serious and effective investigation for a complete elucidation of the facts, the process, the prosecution and punishment of the responsible parties, both abettors and perpetrators within a reasonable period. This situation has been aggravated by the existence and tolerance by the Guatemalan State of mechanisms of fact and law preventing the administration of justice. The State has taken, in the proceeding before the Court, a complex attitude toward the application filed by the Commission. First, it objected to preliminary objections for not depleting the resources of internal jurisdiction, nullity of the subject of the request, lack of veracity regarding the fulfillment of the State duty to persecute and punish the stated violation, lack of solution of State statements regarding variation and revision of the contents of the report by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, that led to the filing of the application before the Court, lack of assessment of State implementation of recommendations set forth in the report by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, a wrong and extensive interpretation of the recognition by the State of Guatemala; inadmissibility of the application because the State did not solve issues related to the depletion of resources of the internal jurisdiction during the procedural stage corresponding to the declaration of admissibility of the case by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, conflict of legal systems (national vs. Inter-American regional), to the detriment of the right conferred on the State and the unions, and wrong interpretation by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights regarding remedies, recourses, and the observance of the national legal system, represent by themselves a violation of the human right to administer justice. On February 18, 2003, the State dropped the preliminary exceptions, even when it sustained as the leading defense to be considered, in the final judgment, its allegation about “the wrong and extensive interpretation of the recognition by the State.” When dropping the preliminary exceptions, the State recognized the acceptance of the following facts: a) the violation to the rights to life, integrity, and dignity of the human person in the case of Myrna Mack Chang, on September 11, 1990, whose abetment, guilt, and direct material liability, was declared by the court having jurisdiction in the