SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE A. A. CANÇADO TRINDADE 1. In voting in favor of the adoption of the this Judgment of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in the case of Gutierrez Soler versus Colombia, with which I basically agree, I feel obliged to include in this Separate Opinion, albeit briefly, my personal reflections on four fundamental issues raised in the instant case, which, in my view, should not go unnoticed. I am referring, in particular, to the following issues: a) time, the life project and the vulnerability of human existence; b) time, the vulnerability of human existence and the after-life; c) the duty of remembrance and the need to remember; and d) the ripening of time, awareness and the quest for forgiveness. I. Time, Life project and the Vulnerability of Human Existence 2. Following the precedent developments regarding the concept of the right to a life “project” in the cases of Loayza Tamayo versus Peru (reparations, 1998), “Street Children” versus Guatemala (merits, 1999, and reparations, 2001) and Cantoral Benavides versus Peru (reparations, 2001),1 the Court had the opportunity to further develop its construction on this concept. However, the lack of consensus among its members as to which direction to take hindered further progress in this regard. Still, I believe that the Court, even without unanimity, should have taken a step forward in its precedents construction, especially in light of the positive step taken by the respondent Government to accept its international liability in the cas d'espèce and to apologize to the victim and to the victim’s next of kin. The Court having elected not to develop its own precedent construction, I feel obliged to put on record my personal reflections on this matter in this Separate Opinion in order to support my position. 3. We all live in time, which eventually consumes us all. Precisely because of this self-perception we have of ourselves as existing in time, each one of us seeks to envisage a life project. The term “project” implies in itself a temporal dimension. The concept of life project has therefore an essentially existential value, grounded in the idea of complete personal achievement. In other words, within the framework of a transient life, people have the right to make the options they feel are best, of their own free will, in order to achieve their ideals. Therefore, endeavors to achieve a life project appear to have great existential value, and the potential to give meaning to each person’s life. 4. When this quest is suddenly torn apart by external factors caused by man (such as violence, injustice, discrimination), which unfairly and arbitrarily alter and destroy an individual’s life project, it is especially serious, —and the Law cannot remain indifferent to this. Life —at least the one we know— is the only one we have and has a time limit, and the destruction of the life project almost always implies a truly irreparable damage or sometimes reparable only with great difficulty. . In other cases, the right to a project of life has been invoked by the plaintiffs before this Court at an individual level (e.g. case of Myrna Mack Chang versus Guatemala, 2003, and case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers versus Peru, 2004), at a family level (e.g. case of Molina Theissen versus Guatemala, 2004), and at a collective level (e.g. case of Plan de Sánchez Massacre versus Guatemala, reparations, 2004). 1