CONCURRING OPINION OF JUDGE RODRIGO MUDROVITSCH
INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
CASE OF ANGULO LOSADA V. BOLIVIA
JUDGMENT OF NOVEMBER 18, 2022
(PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS, MERITS AND REPARATIONS)
1.
In the Case of Angulo Losada v. Bolivia 1, the international responsibility of the State
for violations of the American Convention on Human Rights ("Convention") and the
Convention of Belém do Pará is discussed, in the context of the State's actions
regarding reports of episodes of sexual violence suffered by Brisa Liliana de Angulo
Losada (“Ms. Losada” 2). It has been demonstrated before the Inter-American Court
of Human Rights ("Court") that the State was responsible for violations of the rights
to humane treatment, a fair trial, private and family life, and judicial protection; 3 to
the guarantee of legal proceedings within a reasonable timeframe; 4; to the right to
judicial protection; 5 to the obligation to guarantee, without gender and age-based
discrimination, the right to access to justice; 6 and the prohibition of cruel, inhuman
and degrading treatment, 7 all to the detriment of Ms. Losada. Given this panorama,
this Court has tried to develop a set of measures capable of repairing, to the greatest
extent possible, the harm suffered by the victim, and preventing more people from
being subjected to similar situations.
2. Article 63(1) of the Convention grants the Court a unique capacity to redress human
rights violations in a specific and effective manner. In each case it decides, the Court
considers a wide range of remedies, such as restitution, compensation, rehabilitation,
satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition 8 – seeking specifically to provide a
1
Cf. Case of Angulo Losada v. Bolivia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 18, 2022,
hereinafter “judgment”.
2
I emphasize that my reference to the victim as "Ms. Losada" (considering her current age) should not
obscure that she was a minor at the time of the violence and rape she suffered.
3
Pursuant to Articles 5(1), 8(1), 11(2), 19 and 25(1) of the ACHR in relation to its Article 1(1), as well as
articles 7(b) and 7(c) of the Convention of Belém do Pará (Cf. Sentence, paragraph 320, operative paragraph
n. (3).
4
Pursuant to Articles 8(1) and 19 of the ACHR in relation to its Article 1(1) and Article 7(b) of the
Convention of Belém do Pará (Cf. Judgment, para. 320, operative paragraph n. 4).
5
Pursuant to Articles 19, 24 and 25 of the ACHR in relation to its Articles 1(1) and 2, as well as Articles 7(b)
and 7(e) of the Convention of Belém do Pará (Cf. Judgment, para. 320, operative paragraph n. 5).
6
Pursuant to Articles 8(1), 19 and 25(1) of the ACHR in relation to its Articles 1(1), 2 and 24 and Articles
7(b) and 7(e) of the Convention of Belém do Pará (Cf. Judgment, para. 320, operative paragraph n. 6).
7
Pursuant to Article 5(2) of the ACHR in relation to its Article 1(1) (Cf. Judgment, para. 320, operative
paragraph n. 7)
8
In the terminology adopted in the “Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and
Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of
International Humanitarian Law” (“Basic Principles”), a United Nations study - influenced by the work of this
Court - on the appropriateness of various reparatory measures in the context of international human rights
law ("IHRL"). Cf. UNGA. Basic principles and guidelines on the right to a remedy and reparation for victims of
gross violations of international human rights law and serious violations of international humanitarian law.
Resolution A/RES/60/147 adopted on March 21, 2006, Annex.
1