CONCURRING OPINION JUDGE MANUEL E. VENTURA ROBLES I INTRODUCTION 1. I have concurred with my opinion to the adoption of this judgment of interpretation of the Judgment on merits, reparations, and costs in the case of the Castro Castro Prison v. Peru (hereinafter “the State”), for two basic reasons: first, because the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Court” or “the Inter-American Court”) admitted the request for interpretation made by the State; and second, because I considered it convenient to go into detail regarding the reasons why I voted in favor of the judgment that Peru asked be interpreted. 2. It is also important to mention that the request for the interpretation of the judgment presented by the State has awaken in me a series of reflections, which correspond both to matters of a juridical and a meta-juridical nature, which I wish to share with the main actors of the Inter-American system that are, besides the Court and the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Commission” or “the Inter-American Commission”), conventional bodies of protection, the States Parties to the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” or “the American Convention”), and the non-governmental organizations that litigate before the Court, as well as the victims that access the system. II THE PROBLEMATIC PRESENTED BY THE STATE 3. The State has communicated to the Court, through its request for interpretation of the judgment, not a matter of a juridical nature but of a meta-juridical nature: the perception among the Peruvian population, which for many years suffered from the violence of terrorism, that the judgment of the Court favors offenders or alleged offenders of the domestic antiterrorist legislation, who the judgment calls victims and makes them the beneficiaries of a reparation. And this would make it morally unacceptable for many Peruvians. Both the State, and many of its nationals, would have wanted the Court to condemn terrorism in a much more explicit and strong manner, and that it would have gone into greater detail of considerations regarding this criminal, social, and political phenomenon, as well as determined other types of reparations. III THE REQUEST FOR A PUBLIC HEARING TO SUPPORT THE REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION OF THE JUDGMENT PRESENTED BY THE STATE 4. In its request for interpretation of the judgment, the State has requested that a public hearing be held to orally support its main arguments. Against my criterion, the majority of the Judges considered that the hearing was not necessary to respond to the request for interpretation. In my opinion, if the State wished to make certain