CONCURRING OPINION OF AD HOC JUDGE FRANCISCO EGUIGUREN PRAELI I have concurred in my vote with the judgment of the Court that finds the State of Peru responsible for the violation of the rights of brothers Rafael and Emilio Gómez Paquiyauri to life, to personal liberty, to fair trial, and others. However, I deem it necessary to state certain personal reflections regarding the specific circumstances and nature of this case, as well as on the way in which, I believe, the issue of reparations to the victims should be addressed, especially in the case of the murder of a boy and an adolescent. 1.Brothers Rafael and Emilio Gómez Paquiyauri were 14 and 17 years old, respectively. They were, therefore, two minors, who were unduly and arbitrarily deprived of their liberty by members of the National Police, without their being subject to an arrest warrant issued by a court or having been detected in the act of committing a crime. They were not even carrying out any activity that might have justified their detention, even under a state of emergency. At the time they were arrested, they were mistreated by the members of the police force; they were not taken to a detention center, but rather to a remote place where they were subjected to cruel treatment and torture shortly before being executed in a vile and perfidious manner. Said facts have been fully proven in this proceeding under international venue, but were also duly proven in the criminal proceeding before the domestic Judiciary that sentenced the direct perpetrators of these grave violations. They have also been recognized and acknowledged by the State itself. There is, therefore, no doubt regarding the international liability of the State of Peru, as a consequence of the human rights violations committed by members of the police. For this reason, the Court finds it liable and under the obligation to redress the victims. 2.While the two direct perpetrators of these crimes were trialed and punished under domestic jurisdiction, and were sentenced respectively to 18 and 6 years in prison, various aspects of the case are seriously debatable. First of all, the convicts recovered their liberty soon after the conviction, without having served even one third of the sentence with effective incarceration, availing themselves of penitentiary benefits. While the existence and application of those benefits cannot be denied, when there is a social rehabilitation of the criminal, granting of said benefits by the State –as the Court has pointed out in this judgmentmust be duly weighed and analyzed. Especially in cases of grave human rights violations, committed against an innocent child and an innocent adolescent, said benefits must not become a covert form of impunity. Secondly, the compensations ordered as reparation to be paid by the convicts in the criminal proceeding have not been paid to the next of kin of the Gómez Paquiyauri brothers, given the limited income and financial resources of these former policemen. And since neither the Police nor the State were accused nor found liable in the proceeding under domestic venue, they were not ordered to severally pay any compensation to the victims, for which reason the latter have been unable to collect it.