CONCURRING OPINION OF JUDGE EDUARDO VIO GROSSI WITH THE ORDER OF THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS OF FEBRUARY 20, 2012 CASE OF EL AMPARO V. VENEZUELA MONITORING COMPLIANCE WITH JUDGMENT With this opinion, the undersigned expresses his agreement with the order indicated above (hereinafter “the order”), in the understanding that, in keeping with the relevant norms and in view of the extended, and consequently more than prudent or reasonable, time that has elapsed since the delivery of the judgment in this case without the State concerned (hereinafter “the State”) having complied with its fundamental elements, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Court”) must advise the General Assembly of the Organization of American States (hereinafter “OAS General Assembly”) of this situation. The foregoing is based on the following elements: (a) the specific provisions of the American Convention on Human Rights1 and the Statute of the Court;2 (b) the State concerned must comply with the judgments of the Court 3 and the adoption of the pertinent measures in the event of non-compliance is the responsibility of the OAS General Assembly, the political authority;4 (c) once it has delivered the “final and nonappealable” judgment,5 the Court has no further powers other than the authority to deliver the judgment on reparations and costs, if it has not already done so, 6 to interpret both judgments,7 to rectify any obvious mistakes, clerical errors, or errors in calculation in which it has incurred,8 to monitor compliance with the judgment,9 and to inform the OAS General Assembly in case of non-compliance;10 (d) it is not incumbent upon the Court to substitute for the possible inadequacies of the mechanism established in the Convention for cases of non-compliance with its judgments, but rather, in this eventuality, to submit to the OAS General Assembly “proposals or recommendations on ways to improve the inter-American system of human rights,”11 and it corresponds to the States to adopt the amendments or modifications they deem appropriate; 12 (e) it is not admissible to transform the regulatory mechanism of monitoring compliance with a “final and non-appealable” judgment, 13 into the prolongation of the case: (f) it is not a question of invoking the pro homine principle in this regard,14 because the mechanism of monitoring compliance with judgments is not a right recognized in the Convention, but rather an instrument established by the Rules of Procedure to allow the Court to improve its compliance with the obligation to inform the OAS General Assembly of non-compliance with its judgments, and (g) in 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Art. 65. Art. 30. Art. 68(1) of the Convention. Art. 65 of the Convention. Art. 67 of the Convention. Art. 66 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court. Art. 67 of the Convention. Art.68 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court. Art.76 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court. Art. 69 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court. Art. 65 of the Convention. Art.30 of the Statute of the Court. Art. 30 of the Statute. Arts. 76 and 77 of the Convention. Art. 67 of the Convention. Art. 29 of the Convention.