CONCURRING OPINION OF JUDGE EDUARDO FERRER MAC-GREGOR POISOT CASE OF LAGOS DEL CAMPO V. PERU JUDGMENT OF AUGUST 31, 2017 (PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS, MERITS, REPARATIONS AND COSTS) THE DIRECT JUSTICIABILITY OF ECONOMIC, SOCIAL, CULTURAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL RIGHTS: A NEW STAGE IN INTER-AMERICAN CASE LAW 1. The case of Lagos del Campos v. Peru opens a new and promising horizon for the interAmerican human rights system. This is due to the evolutive interpretation 1 that the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American Court” or “the Court”) has made of Article 26 of the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the American Convention” or “the Pact of San José”). And, particularly, to the step taken towards the full and direct justiciability of the economic, social, cultural and environmental rights (hereinafter “the ESCER” or “the social rights”). 2. First, the judgment approaches the violation of the right to freedom of expression from the perspective of relations between private individuals in labor contexts – worker/company. The judgment finds that “there was no overriding necessity that would have justified the dismissal of Mr. Lagos del Campo,” which occurred owing to his public statements as a labor leader. Thus, his freedom of expression was restricted without taking into consideration that, in essence, those statements referred to matters of general interest and it was appropriate for Mr. Lagos del Campo to give them in his capacity as workers’ representative and president of the Electoral Committee. In this regard, the extensive inter-American case law on the right to freedom of thought and expression recognized in Article 13 of the Pact of San José2 was expanded and consolidated. The Inter-American Court has indicated that human rights treaties are living instrument and their interpretation has to evolve with the times and current conditions. This evolutive interpretation is consequent with the general rules of interpretation established in Article 29 of the American Convention, and also those established by the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Cf. The Right to Information on Consular Assistance within the Framework of the Guarantees of Due Process of Law. Advisory Opinion OC-16/99 of October 1, 1999. Series A No. 16, para. 114; and Case of the Hacienda Brasil Verde Workers v. Brazil. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 20, 2016. Series C No. 318, para. 245. 1 Compulsory Membership of an Association Prescribed by Law for the Practice of Journalism (Arts. 13 and 29 American Convention on Human Rights) Advisory Opinion OC- 5/85, of November 13, 1985. Series No. 5; Case of “The Last Temptation of Christ” (Olmedo Bustos et al.) v. Chile. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 5, 2011. Series C No. 73; Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Reparations and costs. Judgment of February 6, 2001. Series C No. 74; Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 2, 2004. Series C No. 107; Case of Ricardo Canese v. Paraguay. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 31, 2004. Series C No. 111; Case of Palamara Iribarne v. Chile. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 135; Case of Claude Reyes et al. v. Chile. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 19, 2006. Series C No. 151; Case of Kimel v. Argentina. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 2, 2008. Series C No. 177; Case of Tristán Donoso v. Panama. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of January 27, 2009. Series C No. 193; Case of Ríos et al. v. Venezuela. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of January 28, 2009. Series C No. 194; Case of Perozo et al. v. Venezuela. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of January 28, 2009. Series C No. 195; Case of Usón Ramírez v. Venezuela. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 20, 2009. Series C No. 207; Case of Gomes Lund et al. (Guerrilha do Araguaia) v. Brazil. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 24, 2010. Series C No. 219; Case of Fontevecchia and D’Amico v. Argentina. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 29, 2011. Series C No. 238; Case of Mémoli v. Argentina. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 22, 2013. Series C No. 265; Case of Norín Catrimán et al. (Leaders, members and activity of the Mapuche Indigenous People) v. Chile. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 29, 2014. Series C No. 279; and Case of Granier et al. (Radio Caracas Televisión) v. Venezuela. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 22, 2015. Series C No. 293. 2