CONCURRING OPINION OF JUDGE DIEGO GARCÍA-SAYÁN JUDGMENT OF THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS CASE OF LÓPEZ MENDOZA V. VENEZUELA OF SEPTEMBER 1, 2011 1. The case decided by the Court refers to an individual victim, Mr. Leopoldo López Mendoza, and a legal situation and matter, wherein the “main point” is identified by the Court as: 100. The main point of this case lies in the sanctions of disqualification imposed on Mr. Lopez Mendoza by way of a decision of an administrative body, applying Article 105 of the LOCGRSNCF, which prevented him from registering his candidacy for an elective office. 2. Given this central point, the Court has established the international responsibility of Venezuela for affecting, inter alia, the right established in Article 23(2) of the American Convention on Human Rights, which states: “[t] he law may regulate the exercise of the rights and opportunities referred to in the preceding paragraph only on the basis of age, nationality, residence, language, education, civil and mental capacity, or sentencing by a competent court in criminal proceedings.” 3. As the main theme in this case is the right of Mr. Lopez Mendoza to register hi candidacy for elective office and because the Court declared a violation of the right to be elected, turning to, among others, that established in Article 23(2) of the Convention, it so corresponds to compliment the interpretation of this Tribunal regarding said provision and the effects delimited in this case. The matter faced by the Court in this case is also related to the sanctioning power of the administration and its limits in regard to passive suffrage. 4. For the reasons presented in the Judgment, the Court has concluded that in this case Article 23(2) of the American Convention was violated. However, sustaining said conclusion exclusively based upon a literal interpretation of the regulation and not complimenting it with an explanation and further reasoning, as with other tools for interpretation, it could lead to incorrect conclusions if taken beyond the scope of the case and used for other situations that affect political rights. Which, specifically, could be interpreted in a manner that weakens the State’s institutional powers when faced with scourges of corruption. 5. From a, not only literal but also systematic and evolutionary interpretation of Article 23(2), that, also, incorporates the working papers [travaux preparatoire] of the Convention as complimentary criteria, this concurring opinion provides an alternative perspective. But, it should not lead to the conclusion that Mr. López Mendoza’s right to be elected was not violated. Comprehensive interpretations of Article 23(2) 6. An additional analysis of the wording “only” and “sentencing by a competent court in criminal proceedings” of Article 23(2) of the Convention is convenient. In particular, it is relevant to determine if this wording entirely excludes the possibility of imposing limitations on holding public office through legal means other than by way of criminal proceedings or