CONCURRING OPINION OF JUDGE SERGIO GARCÍA-RAMÍREZ ON THE JUDGMENT RENDERED BY THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE CASE OF GÓMEZ-PALOMINO V. PERU ON NOVEMBER 22, 2005 1. In this Opinion, I will address a key aspect of the Case of Mr. GómezPalomino, to wit, the statutory development of the crime of forced disappearance in domestic law and its relation to the international system which the State has approved. Some of the most significant aspects of this matter have been often addressed in the case law of the Inter-American Court, under the Pact of San José, before the Inter-American Convention on the Forced Disappearance of Persons was adopted on June 9, 1994. This instrument was included in the regulatory framework of the matter, wherein it incorporated concepts and defined scopes, the core of which was already contemplated in the American Convention, under other items. 2. The issue of forced disappearance has come up, with an unfortunate frequency, in the cases examined by the Inter-American Court under its contentious jurisdiction. That crime has not disappeared from the “violation phenomenology,” though today most proceedings involve issues of a different nature. In that regard, we should take into account some judgments rendered during the first few years after the Court started to exercise its jurisdiction, including that rendered in the Case of Velásquez-Rodríguez, frequently quoted in the decisions of other national and international tribunals, and by legal scholars. The judgment rendered in VelásquezRodríguez oriented judicial thinking on this matter. The Inter-American Court, based on the American Convention, highlighted then the multiple violations involved in the crime of forced disappearance of persons. Indeed, a variety of legally protected interests and rights are affected by that criminal offense. 3. For some time now, we have devoted our efforts to develop a new international legal order, based on shared convictions and expectations, and as a result of a certain understanding on human dignity and the role of public ―and other― authorities in relation to individuals. In this framework, certainty grew stronger regarding the need to develop definitions ―that are later to support international and domestic actions― of conducts that seriously affect the most valued interests, and call for the adoption of means and methods to prosecute with the aim of preventing such behavior and punishing perpetrators. What is involved is the “other face” of human rights protection in the international scene, the role of which is similar the one played by criminal law in the domestic jurisdiction. Specific crime definitions identify the conducts that most severely affect paramount interests and attach legal consequences to them which, in turn, seriously affect human rights. 4. In this context, conventions and treaties have been signed which refer to certain illegal acts in general and that entrust the States with the task of specifying such acts in their domestic legislation, and providing sufficient and efficient prosecution measures. There are other instruments which move several steps forward in the same direction and go on to describe ―i.e. provide a legal definition, in the language of criminal law― such acts, in order to unify the legal reaction of the international community and to set up a protection and prosecution front line based on shared ideas about justice and security. This happens, for instance, in the InterAmerican context regarding the definition of torture (Article 2 of the Inter-American