PARTIALLY DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE EDUARDO VIO GROSSI, INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS, CASE OF PALACIO URRUTIA ET AL. V. ECUADOR, JUDGMENT OF NOVEMBER 24, 2021 (Merits, Reparations and Costs). This vote is issued with the purpose of expressing disagreement with the provisions of Operative Point No. 2 1 of the above judgment, as well as making a comment on Operative Point No. 1. 2 Regarding Operative Point No. 2, it reiterates what was expressed in the partially dissenting vote issued by the undersigned in relation to the Case of Guachalá Chimbo et al. v. Ecuador of March 26, 2021, a brief that, therefore, is considered reproduced and made part of this document. In regard to Operative Point No. 1, it should be noted that the undersigned voted affirmatively, taking into account the absence in the record of facts that substantiated it. The amicus curiae presented by former President Correa could not fulfill this task 3 and the applicable procedural rules do not provide for an institution analogous to the one that in some national laws is called third parties, that is, people outside the litis but who feel they are affected by what is ruled therein. Eduardo Vio Grossi Judge Pablo Saavedra Alessandri Secretary 1 The State is responsible for the violation of the rights to freedom of expression and the principle of legality, the right of movement and residence and the right to work, established in articles 13, 9, 22 and 26 of the American Convention on Human Rights, in relation to articles 1(1) and 2 of the same instrument, to the detriment of Emilio Palacio Urrutia, in the terms of paragraphs 23 to 30, 87 to 127, 145 to 150, and 153 to 160 of this judgment. 2 “Accept the State's acknowledgment of responsibility, pursuant to paragraphs 18 to 30 of this Judgment.” Art.2(3) of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights: “ the expression “amicus curiae” refers to the person or institution who is unrelated to the case and to the proceeding and submits to the Court reasoned arguments on the facts contained in the presentation of the case or legal considerations on the subjectmatter of the proceeding by means of a document or an argument presented at a hearing”. 3