CONCURRING OPINION OF JUDGE SERGIO GARCÍA-RAMÍREZ TO THE JUDGMENT ON THE CASE OF PALAMARA-IRIBARNE V. CHILE OF NOVEMBER 22, 2005 1. Freedom of expression and due process of law are the central issues of this case. The due process of law shall be the main issue of this Concurring Opinion, and it constitutes the most frequently addressed issue by the Inter-American Court jurisprudence regarding adversarial cases, and it has also been approached, directly or indirectly, in some advisory opinions. It is also present in several decisions of provisional measures. The remarkable presence of this subject matter in the actions brought before the Inter-American Court coincides with the experience of the European Court of Human Rights and the European national courts before which violations against the Rome Convention are claimed. 2. Consequently, the due process of law is a crucial issue of the international protection system of human rights. It is so due to its material characteristics and its constant presence. The frequency with which it occurs corresponds to the transcendence it has for the operation of human rights and, therefore, for the effectiveness and firmness of the state in which the rule of law prevails. It is through the due process of law that the best defense of fundamental rights is provided, when these are affected or at risk. So, all the aspects of this subject matter gain extraordinary relevance, particularly some which have been considered by the Court in the Case of Palamara-Iribarne, which judgment follows the line set by previous decisions which have influenced the domestic legislation and jurisprudence. 3. To give credit to these statements, it should be enough to take into account – quantitatively and qualitatively – the preventions of Article 8 of the American Convention on Human Rights, grouped under the “Right to a Fair Trial” title. The matter gains even more importance –that is to say, it shows its true face and actual transcendence- if under a broader concept of due process of law, the other expressions of effective, timely and fair trial are added, which appear in several cases and which constitute many other means to preserve, protect or recover basic rights of the person. 4. This extension of the traditional concept in order to encompass all the aspects of the subject matter into one concept which corresponds to the whole phenomenon leads to invoke different means of protection incorporated in provisions of the Pact of San José, several included in Article 8, which have autonomy regarding the pact, but are linked to it through the notion of due process: Article 4 (right to request pardon, amnesty or commutation); Article 5 (exclusion of mistreatment in every case, most of which are related – of fact or of law – with the development of a criminal judicial investigation or pretrial investigation, separation of indictees, regime of minors pending trial); Article 7 (legality and legitimacy of deprivation of liberty, rights of the detainee, judicial control of confinement); 25 (judicial protection of fundamental rights), and probably also Articles 9 (conviction grounds) and 10 (damages compensation for conviction based on a procedural error). The provisions regarding deprivation or restriction of rights explicitly related to specific cases (for instance, impact on the right to property, according to Article 21, and on the rights of circulation and residence, in the terms of Article 22) should be added, as well as – of course- Article 27, regarding the prohibition to suspend certain rights and the