Concurring opinion of Judge Diego García-Sayán in relation to the judgment of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, in Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia of May 26, 2010 1. In this concurring opinion, I develop the grounds for my agreement with the decision taken by the Court in the judgment in the case of Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia as regards the positive assessment of the measures taken in the domestic sphere by the administrative jurisdiction concerning the determination of compensation for loss of potential earnings, and find that the amount established in that sphere was reasonable. My reasoning on this point appears below. 2. In this case, among other aspects, the Court considered two that I believe are especially relevant. The first, that it was incumbent on the Court to assess whether the “national mechanisms for determining forms of reparation […] satisfy criteria of objectivity, reasonableness, and effectiveness to make adequate reparation for the violations of rights recognized in the Convention that have been declared by this Court” (para. 246). The second, that, in this case, the Court developed this attribution by determining that “it has been determined that the next of kin of Senator Cepeda Vargas had access to the administrative law courts, which established compensation for loss of potential earnings based on objective and reasonable criteria. Consequently, the Court assesses positively the measures taken by the domestic courts in this case, 1 and finds that the amount established by these courts is reasonable in terms of its case law” (para. 246). 3. In my opinion, the conclusion reached by the Court in the instant case on this issue is supported by three fundamental factors. The first is the principle of the subsidiarity of the international jurisdiction; the second, consists in substantive juridical and doctrinal considerations concerning compensation for pecuniary damage, and the third, is the verification by the Court of the conformity of the compensation decided internally with the international obligation to make reparation. I. The principle of the subsidiarity of the international jurisdiction 4. The preamble of the American Convention establishes a fundamental principle, which is the subsidiarity of the inter-American human rights jurisdiction to the domestic jurisdiction, when recognizing that the international protection of human rights “reinforc[es] or complement[s] the protection provided by the domestic law of the American states.” This subsidiarity is also embodied in Articles 46(1)(a) and 61(2) of the American Convention, which stipulate the requirement of exhausting domestic remedies before having recourse to lodging a petition before the inter-American system. 5. The Court has developed this principle, when affirming that “[t]he rule of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies permits the State to resolve the problem in accordance with its domestic laws before becoming involved in international proceedings, which is especially valid in the international human rights jurisdiction, because this reinforces or complements the domestic jurisdiction.” 2 The Court has established that State responsibility: 1 Cf. Case of the La Rochela Massacre, supra note 16, para. 245. 2 Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 61.