CONCURRING OPINION OF JUDGE RICARDO C. PÉREZ MANRIQUE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS CASE OF BENITES CABRERA ET AL. V. PERU JUDGMENT OF OCTOBER 4, 2022 I. INTRODUCTION 1. This judgment, in the terms of its paragraphs 89 to 105, declares the violation of the rights to judicial guarantees and to judicial protection, recognized in Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention, read in conjunction with Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of the persons listed in Annex 1 of the judgment. It also declares, in the terms of its paragraphs 109 to 118, the violation of the right to work, recognized in Article 26 of the Convention, read in conjunction with Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of the persons listed in Annex 1 of the judgment. Lastly, it declares, in the terms of its paragraphs 119 to 123, the violation of political rights, recognized in Article 23 of the Convention, read in conjunction with Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of the persons listed in Annex 1 of the judgment. 2. I hereby present this concurring opinion, but I believe it necessary to refer to the reasons for my views on the justiciability of economic, social, cultural and environments rights (ESCER), repeating the basis of prior opinions and presenting some ideas on the case in question. 3. This concurring opinion is structured as follows: 1) The direct justiciability of ESCER; 2) The infringement of the political rights of the victims; 3) Conclusions. II. THE DIRECT JUSTICIABILITY OF ESCER 4. The justiciability of ESCER has been debated, in the doctrine and by the Court, and has resulted in at least three perspectives or approaches, among other issues that I mentioned in my concurring opinion in National Association of Discharged and Retired Employees of the National Tax Administration Superintendence (ANCEJUB-SUNAT) v. Peru of November 21, 2019.1 5. The first perspective proposes that individual violations of ESCER lack “direct justiciability.” This is not to say that they are not justiciable, but rather that they are so “indirectly.” In order to analyze a violation of those rights, the Court can only do so in relation to the civil and political rights expressly recognized in Articles 3 to 25 of the Convention, with the exception that the infringement of two ESCER rights may be declared directly: the right to education and the trade union rights. Both those rights are expressly recognized as “justiciable” by Article 19(6) of the 1 Cf. Case of the National Association of Discharged and Retired Employees of the National Tax Administration Superintendence (ANCEJUB-SUNAT) v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits,, Reparations and Costs. Judgment November 21, 2019. Series C No. 394, among others. 1

Select target paragraph3