These limits to the military criminal jurisdiction and its correct application must be observed by the State of Guatemala, derived from the full acknowledgment of the jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and therefore the binding nature its judgments has on the Guatemalan State when it is part of a proceeding before that Court. Thus, these parameters should be seriously taken into consideration when the discussion on a new military criminal law is taken up again in Guatemala. In the meantime, the case of Tiu Tojín v. Guatemala shall also act as a parameter or reference for the Supreme Court of Justice when it carries out all the steps it must complete in order to fully comply with Decree 41-96 of the Congress of the Republic through which Article 2 of Decree 214-1878 (Military Code) was reformed and therefore finally achieve that “the military jurisdiction be applied only to the members of the armed institution that commit crimes of a military order that affect the army” (third considering clause of the previously mentioned Decree 4196), since, as observed in this case, at least on this opportunity almost twelve years went by since the Military Code was reformed and the mentioned reform was not effectively put into action. D.- Jus Cogens To conclude this concurring separate opinion, the consideration made by the court in paragraph 91 of this Judgment is especially relevant. This taking into account that some domestic judgments of the Guatemalan jurisdiction (for example the judgment issued in case file number 3380-2007 of the Constitutionality Court) have avoided considering or remembering the grave nature of the offense of forced disappearance and they have wanted to define or classify it as a political crime or as related to a political crime. As correctly stated by the Court, pursuant with the preamble of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance, of which Guatemala is a State Party, the systematic practice of the forced disappearance of people constitutes a crime against humanity and is also an offense of a continuous and non-extinguishable nature, which entails the consequences established by the applicable international law. “…the jus cogens, in my understanding, is an open category, which expands itself to the extent that the universal juridical conscience (material source of all Law) awakens for the necessity to protect the rights inherent to each human being in every and any 127 situation" (para. 68). I believe that the Judgment in the case of Tiu Tojín v. Guatemala refers to this definition of “jus cogens”. For all the aforementioned reasons as well as other important considerations included in the judgment of the case sub judice and that I personally praise due to the positive impact they should have on the Guatemalan system for the administration of justice, such as the correct criminal definition of the crime of forced disappearance by the national courts; of the right to a fair trial with “cultural pertinence” when dealing with people who belong to indigenous groups who require said access; as well as the impossibility to argue “State secrecy” and “reasons of national safety” when dealing with violations to human rights; therefore, I fully agree, from beginning to end, with the judgment issued on this day. 127 Concurring opinion of Judge Cancado Trinidade, in Juridical Condition and Rights of the Undocumented Migrants. Advisory Opinion OC-18/03 of September 17, 2003. Series A No. 18. 49