1 CONCURRING OPINION OF JUDGE AD HOC EDUARDO FERRER MACGREGOR POISOT IN REGARD TO THE JUDGEMENT OF THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE CASE OF CABRERA GARCÍA AND MONTIEL FLORES V. MEXICO, OF NOVEMBER 26, 2010 I. INTRODUCTION 1. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights (hereinafter the “I/A Court of H.R” or the “Inter-American Court”) has reiterated in the case at hand, unanimously, its doctrinal jurisprudence on the “control of compliance.” I find it timely to issue this concurring opinion in order to highlight new considerations and clarifications that are rendered on this doctrine in this Judgment, as well as to emphasize its importance for the Mexican judicial system, and in general, for the future of the Inter-American System for the Protection of Human Rights. 2. As the judges that makeup the I/A Court of H.R. in the present matter, we deliberated on several aspects of the “control of compliance” at two different times, as is evident from the two separate sections of the Judgment rendered in the Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores v. Mexico (hereinafter “the Judgment”). First, upon dismissing the preliminary objection raised by the respondent State, regarding the alleged lack of jurisdiction of the I/A Court of H.R. as a “court of appeals” or “fourth instance”;1 second, upon establishing the measures of reparation that stemmed from the violations to certain international obligations, particularly in the chapter on “Guarantees of non-repetition” and specifically in the section on the necessary “Adaptation of domestic law to international standards of justice.”2 3. To provide more clarity, we will address the following separately: a) the preliminary objection that considered the I/A Court of H.R. lacked jurisdiction based on an argument of “fourth instance” due to the domestic courts use of the “control of compliance” (paras. 4 to 12); b) the principal characteristics of the “diffused control of compliance” and its details in the present case (paras. 13 to 63); c) the implications of this doctrinal jurisprudence in the Mexican rules of procedure (paras. 64 to 84), and d) some general conclusions on the importance of this fundamental doctrine of the I/A Court of H.R., which in a progressive manner 1 Cf. Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores v. Mexico. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgement of November 26, 2010, para. 12 to 22. 2 Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores v. Mexico, supra note 1, para. 224 to 235.