CONCURRING OPINION OF JUDGE EDUARDO FERRER MAC-GREGOR POISOT TO THE JUDGMENT OF THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE CASE OF LIAKAT ALI ALIBUX V. SURINAME, OF JANUARY 30, 2014 INTRODUCTION 1. Essentially I concur with the decision in this case, wherein relevant inter-American standards were established, inter alia, on the scope of the right to freedom from ex post facto laws regarding regulations that govern procedure (Article 9 of the American Convention on Human Rights, hereinafter "American Convention" or "Pact of San Jose"), as well as the scope of the right to appeal the judgment to a higher court—article 8(2)(h)) of the Pact of San Jose—, when a criminal process is carried out in a single instance before highest judicial body in a domestic legal system. 2. I write this separate opinion, pursuant to the terms established in Article 66(2) of the American Convention,1 because I wish to highlight two aspects that I consider relevant to the inter-American system in its entirety, and that were not discussed in the Judgment on Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs in regard to the Case of Liakat Ali Alibux v. Suriname (hereinafter the "Judgment"). 3. The first aspect is in regard to the first preliminary objection raised by the respondent State, on the lack of exhaustion of domestic remedies for the filing of the petition before the Inter-American Commission, on matters relating to substantial and functional consequences of the protection of the right to access to justice of the alleged victims before the Inter-American System, and also on the understanding of the principle of subsidiarity and complementarity that govern it, in light of the American Convention and its effet util. 4. The second aspect is in regard to a new dimension that has barely been explored in Inter-American jurisprudence on the right to judicial protection as an integrating element of the fundamental rights of national and conventional sources, established by Article 25 of the American Convention.2 Traditionally, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights ("InterAmerican Court of HR" or "Inter-American Court") has widely developed in its jurisprudence the dimension of the obligation to guarantee access to a judicial remedy that is effective, adequate, prompt and simple considering any recourse or as a challenge as a dimension of the right of access to justice in general. 5. However, there is a particular dimension, which to my understanding is of great substantive importance to the protection of rights, which is expressly provided in Article 1 This precept notes: “If the judgment does not represent in whole or in part the unanimous opinion of the judges, any judge shall be entitled to have his dissenting or separate opinion attached to the judgment.” 2 “Art. 25. Judicial Protection. 1. Everyone has the right to simple and prompt recourse, or any other effective recourse, to competent court or tribunal for protection against acts that violate his fundamental rights recognized by the constitution or laws of the state concerned or by this Convention, even though such violation may have been committed by persons acting in the course of their official duties. 2. The States Parties undertake: a. to ensure that any person claiming such remedy shall have his rights determined by the competent authority provided for by the legal system of the state; b. to develop the possibilities of judicial remedy; and c. to ensure that the competent authorities shall enforce such remedies when granted.