DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE MANUEL E. VENTURA ROBLES CASE OF GRANIER ET AL. (RADIO CARACAS TELEVISIÓN) V. VENEZUELA JUDGMENT OF JUNE 22, 2015 (Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs) 1. I have dissented from the majority opinion in operative paragraphs 11, 12 and 13 of the judgment in the case of Granier et al. (Radio Caracas Televisión) v. Venezuela, because, if I had not done so, it would not be possible to rectify the contradiction between this case and others heard by this Court against the State of Venezuela with regard to two essential points which are those that refer to the guarantee of judicial independence and impartiality, and the right to property. 2. The case of Granier et al. v. Venezuela is, without any doubt, the most important judgment that the Inter-American Court of Human Rights has handed down in the area of freedom of expression (Article 13 of the American Convention on Human Rights) and the consequent reparations (Article 63 of the Convention). Throughout the judgment, the Court’s desire to avoid violations of freedom of expression in our hemisphere, to reverse the case law in the case of Mémoli v. Argentina, and to convince the State of the gravity of the violation through the reparation ordered of returning the assets in question is unmistakable. 3. A crucial point to understand this judgment is the lack of independence and impartiality of the Judiciary in Venezuela, reiterated by the Court in the judgments delivered in the cases of Apitz Barbera et al.,1 Reverón Trujillo2 and Chocrón Chocrón,3 and to understand the consequences of this in the instant case: the violation of the right to property. 4. One of the main purposes of the separation of the public powers is to guarantee the independence of judges to avoid the judicial system and its components being subjected to undue constraints in the exercise of their function by entities that are not part of the Judiciary or, even, by those justices who exercise functions of review or appeal.4 In addition, the guarantee of judicial independence includes the guarantee against external pressure; 5 thus, Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Contentious Administrative Court”) v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 5, 2008. Series C No. 182, para. 148. In that case, the Court declared that: “the State violated the right of Messrs. Apitz, Rocha and Ruggeri to be tried by a court with sufficient guarantees of independence.” See also, paras. 109 to 148. 1 Case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 30, 2009. Series C No. 197, para. 127. The Court indicated that “owing to the specific consequences they had in this particular case, some of the norms and practices associated with the judicial restructuration process underway in Venezuela greatly affect judicial independence.” See also, paras. 67 to 70, 77 to 79, 81, 114, 121 and 122. 2 Case of Chocrón Chocrón v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 1, 2011. Series C No. 227, para. 142. According to the Court: “owing to their specific consequences in this particular case, the inexistence of clear norms and practices on the full effectiveness of judicial guarantees in the removal of provisional and temporary judges resulted in a violation of the obligation to adopt appropriate and effective measures to ensure judicial independence.” See also paras. 97 to 110. 3 Cf. Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Contentious Administrative Court”) v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 5, 2008. Series C No. 182, para. 55, and Case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 30, 2009. Series C No. 197, para. 67. 4 Cf. Case of the Constitutional Court v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of January 31, 2001. Series C No. 71, para. 75, and Case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 30, 2009. Series C No. 197, para. 80. See also ECHR, Case of Campbell and Fell v. The United Kingdom, (No. 7819/77; 7878/77), Judgment of June 28, 1984, para. 78, and Case of Langborger v. Sweden [Grand Chamber], (No. 11179/84), Judgment of June 22, 1989, para. 32. See also Principles 2, 3 and 4 of the United Nations Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary, adopted by the Seventh United Nations Congress on 5