CONCURRING OPINION OF JUDGE RICARDO C. PÉREZ MANRIQUE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS CASE OF MANUELA ET AL. V. EL SALVADOR JUDGMENT OF NOVEMBER 2, 2021 (Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs) I. INTRODUCTION 1. The judgment considers that the State of El Salvador is responsible for the violation of the rights to personal liberty and the presumption of innocence pursuant to Articles 7(1), 7(3) and 8(2) of the American Convention on Human Rights (the Convention) in relation to the obligations to respect and to ensure these rights and the duty to adopt domestic legal provisions established in Articles 1(1) and 2 of this instrument, to the detriment of Manuela. It also considers that the State is responsible for the violation of the right to defense, the right to be tried by an impartial court, the presumption of innocence, the duty to provide the reasons for a decision, the obligation not to apply the law in a discriminatory manner, the right not to be subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment and the obligation to ensure that the purpose of a prison sentence is the reform and social rehabilitation of the person convicted pursuant to Articles 8(1), 8(2), 8(2)(d), 8(2)(e), 24, 5(2) and 5(6) of the Convention, in relation to the obligations to respect and to ensure these rights without discrimination, and the duty to adopt domestic legal provisions established in Articles 1(1) and 2 of this instrument. Furthermore, it considers the State responsible for violating the rights to life, personal integrity, privacy, equality before the law and health, pursuant to Articles 4, 5, 11, 24 and 26 of the Convention in relation to the obligations to respect and to ensure these rights without discrimination, and the duty to adopt domestic legal provisions established in Articles 1(1) and 2 of this instrument, and also for failing to comply with its obligations under Article 7(a) of the Convention of Belém do Pará, to the detriment of Manuela. Lastly, it considers the State responsible for violating the right to personal integrity, recognized in Article 5(1) of the Convention in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument, to the detriment of Manuela’s mother, father, and older and younger sons. 2. In this opinion, I concur with the judgment and examine the way in which I consider that the IACtHR should address cases involving violations of the economic, social, cultural and environmental rights, based on the universality, indivisibility, interdependence and interrelation of all human rights as grounds for their justiciability. Then, I will examine the intersectionality of vulnerabilities and the structural discrimination of which Manuela was a victim. Lastly, I will analyze the importance of including a gender perspective when adjudicating a case such as that of Manuela. II. THE ISSUE OF THE RIGHT TO HEALTH OF MANUELA AS AN ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL RIGHT JUSTICIABLE PER SE 3. As I have argued in previous opinions, and reiterating the rationale proposed in them,1 based on the universality, indivisibility, interdependence and interrelation of human rights, I maintain the Court’s competence to examine individual violations of the economic, social, cultural and environmental rights. I do so in the belief that human rights are interdependent Cf. Among others, concurring opinion to the judgment of November 21, 2019, in the Case of the National Association of Discharged and Retired Employees of the National Tax Administration Superintendence (AncejubSunat) v. Peru; to the judgment of November 22, 2019, in the Case of Hernández v. Argentina; to the judgment of February 6, 2020, in the Case of the Indigenous Communities of the Lhaka Honhat (Our Land) Association v. Argentina, and to the judgment of July 15, 2020, in the Case the Workers of the Fireworks Factory in Santo Antonio de Jesús and their families v. Brazil. 1 1