CONCURRING OPINION OF JUDGE EUGENIO RAÚL ZAFFARONI 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) 1. I consider it appropriate to indicate – as obiter dicta – two aspects relating to this judgment. 2. Above all, I note that the arguments that resulted in the operative paragraphs find and relate to an evident contradiction in the laws of El Salvador with regard to the general obligation to report offenses subject to public prosecution. 3. Although, ultimately, this incoherence has no practical effects – or at least they are not revealed – it is useful to point this out for a better understanding of that legislation in light of international law, in case at another time and in other circumstances it is sought to derive any punitive effects from it. 4. Article 241 of the Constitution of the Republic of El Salvador establishes that: “Public, civil and military officials who become aware of official offenses committed by officials or employees who are their subordinates shall communicate this to the competent authorities as soon as possible for their prosecution, and if they do not do so promptly, they shall be considered accessories and shall incur the corresponding criminal responsibilities.” 5. Coherently with this, article 312 of the Criminal Code establishes penalties for the violation of this provisions: “The public official or employee, law enforcement agent or public authority who, in the exercise of his functions or due to them, becomes aware that a punishable act has been perpetrated and fails to report this to the competent official within twenty-four hours shall be sanctioned with a penalty of fifty to one hundred daysfine [Note: a fine based on the income of the person concerned]. The same punishment shall be imposed on the head or person in charge of a hospital, clinic or other similar public or private establishment, who fails to inform the competent official within eight hours that an injured person has been admitted, in cases in which it is reasonable to consider that the injuries originated from an offense.” 6. In accordance with the foregoing, article 232 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in force at the time of the facts established that: “The following are obliged to report offenses subject to public prosecution: (i) Officials who become aware of such offenses in the exercise of their functions. They shall also report official offenses committed by officials or employees who are their subordinates and if they do not do so promptly, they shall incur criminal responsibility; (2) “physicians, pharmacists, nurses and other persons who exercise health-related professions and who learn […] [of actionable offenses] when providing the assistance required of their profession, unless the knowledge they acquire is protected by professional secrecy, and (3) Persons who, by an order of the law, of the authority, or by a legal measure, are responsible for the management, administration, care or control of the goods or interests of an institution, entity or person, in relation to an offense committed to its detriment, or to that of the assets or patrimony under their responsibility or control provided that they learns of the fact due to the exercise of their functions, unless offenses that do not have a serious impact on those assets are involved. In all the foregoing cases, the report is not compulsory if there is a reasonable risk of 4