CONCURRING OPINION OF JUDGE DIEGO GARCÍA-SAYÁN TO THE ORDER ON MONITORING COMPLIANCE WITH JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF THE SARAMAKA PEOPLE V. SURINAME OF NOVEMBER 23, 2011 1. The monitoring of compliance with its own Judgments is one of the Inter-American Court of Human Right’s most important powers for the protection of human rights. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American Court,” “the Court,” or “the Tribunal”) has exercised this power since its first decisions, and it is an essential tool for ensuring compliance therewith. The stage of monitoring compliance with judgments has become a central aspect of the protection of the human rights of the people of the Americas. This is not only because it guarantees, in the specific case in which the State is a party, “that the injured party [is] ensured the enjoyment of his right or freedom that was violated[;] that the consequences of the measure or situation that constituted the breach of such right or freedom [are] remedied[;] and that fair compensation [is] 1 paid to the injured party,” but also that a judgment’s effet utile is spread to the other State parties, thus promoting the full effectiveness of human rights. 2. An evaluation of the procedure for monitoring compliance with the judgments issued by the Court, reinforced by hearings held for that purpose, leads me to 2 declare that this tool has become a vital and successful mechanism. By means of this mechanism, a new dynamic has been embedded into this stage, facilitating and promoting significant advances in the implementation of measures to comply with that ordered by the Court in its decisions, and generating participatory spaces for dialogue and agreement between State authorities and the victims or their representatives. This new dynamic has been regarded in a very positive light by the different actors involved in cases before the Court. In relation to the above, it is worth noting that the General Assembly of the Organization of American 1 2 Article 63 of the American Convention on Human Rights. The unchanging practice of the Court since 1989 has been to request reports from the State. Generally, this begins with a first report that must be submitted to the Court within a year from the date on which the Judgment is served. Subsequently, the observations of the victims or their representatives and of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights are requested. Once the necessary information is obtained, the Court issues an Order evaluating the degree of process in compliance with its orders and ruling that conducive to moving forth with the measures that are still pending compliance. Even though this process was carried out mainly in writing, as of 2007, the Court implemented an innovating mechanism that consists of holding hearings for monitoring compliance with the judgments. At these hearings the parties have the opportunity of directly hearing their positions and reacting to them, and the Court has the possibility of “sugg[esting] alternativ[e] [solutions], call[ing] […] attention [to] non-compliance [due to a] lack of willingness, promo[ting] the preparation of compliance schedules for the parties involved […], and even [offering] its premises for the parties to hold conversations, which, on many occasions, are very difficult to arrange with the State involved.” (Cf. Annual Report of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights for 2010, page 10). This practice was consolidated in Article 69(3) of the current Rules of Procedure, which expressly establishes the possibility that the Court may convene a hearing when it deems pertinent. (Cf. Rules of Procedure approved by the Inter-American Court in its LXXXV Regular Period of Sessions held from November 16 to 28, 2009).