CONCURRENT OPINION JUDGE MARGARETTE MAY MACAULAY THE BARBANI ET AL v. URUGUAY JUDGMENT OF THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS OCTOBER 13, 2011 1. I feel constrained to state my concurrent opinion to the statements of the Majority decision as they appear in paragraphs 60, 115-123 of the said majority judgment, by adding the following on the issue and applicability of Article 8(1) of the Convention. 2. It is my view that Article 8(1) does not only relate to courts of law in the national arena but that its provisions relate to all tribunals; that is to say, to courts of law and other tribunals and bodies established under national legislation, to examine and decide issues which determine the rights and obligations of persons and impose punishment, liabilities and/or award compensation or other reparatory relief. 3. My view is supported by the ordinary and dictionary meaning of the word “tribunal”, that is to say, a court of justice, or a seat or bench for a Judge or Judges, or a place of judgment, or a judicial authority, or a board appointed by the Government to adjudicate in some matter, especially one appointed to investigate a matter of public concern. 4. This consequently clearly encompasses courts of law and all administrative and quasi-judicial tribunals, including but not limited to civil service and police service commissions, professional committees and bodies and school boards which hear and adjudicate criminal charges and constitutional and civil claims and complaints of misconduct and/or mis-behaviour of the members of their respective bodies; and also labour, industrial and gender rights tribunals, which hear and determine matters relating to breaches of special legislative provisions which regulate conduct in those particular spheres. 5. It is my opinion that the wording of Article 8(1) of the American Convention permits no other interpretation but that stated in the existing jurisprudence of the Court, since the case of The Constitutional Court vs. Peru-Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 31, 2001. Series C No.71 and followed by the majority of the Judges of the Court in the instant case. 6. Finally, to reiterate my opinion, any national tribunal which has the power through its proceedings and decisions to affect adversely or positively the rights and obligations of individuals must adhere to the provisions of Article 8(1) of the Convention. Margarette May Macaulay Judge Pablo Saavedra Alessandri Secretary