PARTIALLY DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE PATRICIA PEREZ GOLDBERG INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS CASE OF GUEVARA DÍAZ V. COSTA RICA JUDGMENT OF JUNE 22, 2022 (Merits, reparations and costs) 1. With full respect for the majority decision of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (hereinafter, "the Court" or the “Court"), I hereby issue this partially dissenting opinion1 to explain my stance on this Court’s jurisdiction in matters of social, economic, cultural, and environmental rights (hereinafter, “ESCER”). Before addressing this particular topic, I will make some general comments in order to contextualize the subsequent analysis. 2. As is known, the law of treaties addresses the obligations arising from the express consent of states. Consequently, if their wishes converge on a certain subject, this consent must be expressed as established by Article 2(a) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (hereinafter the VCLT).2 3. Under these types of international agreements, states can agree to establish courts charged with applying and interpreting their provisions and, through subsequent instruments, expand the competence of these bodies. International courts must therefore exercise their powers within the framework established by the relevant treaties. Such legal instruments constitute the grounds for as well as the limits to their action. From a Democratic perspective, this is coherent with due respect for domestic deliberative processes undertaken to ratify the treaty and with the type of interpretation done by international courts. This hermeneutic work is done regarding norms of international law and is not of a constitutional nature. 4. In light of these considerations, and taking into account that in this case, the Court finds a violation of the right to work based on the provisions of Article 26 of the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter, "the Convention" or "the ACHR ”), it is worth asking whether the Court has jurisdiction to proceed in this way. 5. The answer to this question is no. Article 1(1) of the Convention is clear in indicating that states Parties “undertake to respect the rights and freedoms recognized herein and to ensure to all persons subject to their jurisdiction the free and full exercise of those rights and freedoms, without any discrimination [...].” In line with this, the rules on the competence and functions of the Court are also clear where they establish that the Court is subject to the provisions of the ACHR. Effectively, Article 62(3) indicates that the “jurisdiction of the Court shall comprise all cases concerning the interpretation and application of the provisions of this Convention that are submitted to it [...],” and likewise, Article 63(1) establishes that, “if the Court finds that there has been a violation of a right or freedom protected Article 65(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Inter-American Court: “Any Judge who has taken part in the consideration of a case is entitled to append a separate reasoned opinion to the judgment, concurring or dissenting. These opinions shall be submitted within a time limit to be fixed by the Presidency so that the other Judges may take cognizance thereof before notice of the judgment is served. Said opinions shall only refer to the issues covered in the judgment.” 1 “‘treaty’ means an international agreement concluded between States in written form and governed by international law, whether embodied in a single instrument or in two or more related instruments and whatever its particular designation.” 2