SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE EDUARDO FERRER MAC-GREGOR POISOT CASE OF MUELLE FLORES V. PERU JUDGMENT OF MARCH 6, 2019 (Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs) INTRODUCTION: THE RIGHT TO SOCIAL SECURITY AS AN AUTONOMOUS AND JUSTICIABLE RIGHT (ITS SPECIAL IMPACT ON THE OLDER PERSON) 1. The judgment in the case of Muelle Flores v. Peru (hereinafter “the judgment” or “Muelle Flores”)1 contributes to the inter-American line of case law on the economic, social, cultural and environmental rights (hereinafter “the ESCER” or “the social rights”). The judgment reaffirms the competence of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Court” or “the Inter-American Court”) to analyze autonomous violations of Article 26 of the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the American Convention” or “the Pact of San José”).2 2. The case of Muelle Flores marks an important precedent for the inter-American system. For the first time, the Inter-American Court directly addresses the right to social security as an autonomous and justiciable right under Article 26 of the American Convention, declaring that this right has been violated and establishing relevant standards based on the fact that the victim is an individual who is in a situation requiring special protection because he is an older person with a disability.3 1 Cf. Case of Muelle Flores v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 6, 2019. Series C No. 375. 2 Cf. Case of Acevedo Buendía et al. (“Discharged and Retired Employees of the Comptroller’s Office”) v. Peru. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 1, 2009. Series C No. 198, paras. 12 to 19; Case of Lagos del Campo v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 31, 2017. Series C No. 340, paras. 142 and 145; Advisory Opinion OC-23/17 on The Environment and Human Rights (State obligations with regard to the environment in the context of the protection and guarantee of the rights to life and to personal integrity – interpretation and scope of Articles 4(1) and 5(1), in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of the American Convention on Human Rights). November 15, 2017, Series A No. 23, para. 57; Case of the Dismissed Employees of Petroperú et al. v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 23, 2017. Series C No. 344, para. 192; Case of San Miguel Sosa et al. v. Venezuela. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 8, 2018. Series C No. 348, para. 220; Case of Poblete Vilches et al. v. Chile. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 8, 2018. Series C No. 349, para. 100; Case of Cuscul Pivaral et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 23, 2018. Series C No. 359, paras. 75 to 97; and Case of Muelle Flores v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 6, 2019. Series C No. 375, paras. 33 to 37. 3 “Oscar Muelle Flores is 82 years of age and suffers from a severe hearing disability as a result of the total loss of hearing in one of his ears 15 years ago and a decrease in hearing in the other ear. Also, in May 2018, Mr. Muelle Flores was diagnosed with “senile dementia (Alzheimer's type)” and, in July 2018, suffered a femoral fracture and underwent a hip replacement operation.” Case of Muelle Flores v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 6, 2019. Series C No. 375, para. 52.