SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE A.A. CANÇADO TRINDADE 1. I have concurred with my vote to the adoption of the present Judgment of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, regarding the request for interpretation of the Judgment on the Case of the Moiwana Community versus Suriname, only because the Court has shown itself willing to “resolve” the issues presented by the State and the representatives of the victims and their families, and because I do not disagree with the brief clarification made by the Court in paragraph 19 of the present Judgment, in reference to the only point that truly refers to an interpretation of the previous Judgment (that of 15/06/2005) in the cas d’espèce. Nevertheless, I think that paragraphs 18 and 19 of the present Judgment “resolve” the issues presented before the Court in a manifestly insufficient and unsatisfactory manner, and are contradictory with the previous paragraphs 14 and 17 of the same Judgment. 2. In this regard, it should not pass unnoticed that the representatives’ written brief (of 11/9/2005) was prompted by the State’s request (of 10/4/2005), and formulated as a response to it. In the present Separate Opinion I am only referring to the question that should have, to my knowledge, been the cause of much reflection for the Court, the question to which I attribute the most relevance: the delimitation, demarcation, titling and the return of land to the victims and their families, as a form of reparation. The Court could have, and should have, developed paragraph 19 of the present Judgment in such manner that would truly have “resolved” that which was submitted, but it limited and refrained itself amidst a juridical formalism and a lack of humane sensitiveness that are unacceptable to me. 3. For this reason I find myself in the duty to proceed to the development of a reasoning of my own, in a manner that will supply what the Court preferred to abstain from doing, leaving on record my personal reflections, as a basis for my position, like I did in my Separate Opinion to the Court’s Judgment (of 6/15/2005) regarding the present Case of the Moiwana Community. My reflections will focus mainly on three basic points: a) the delimitation, demarcation, titling and return of land as a form of reparation; b) the guarantee of the option of a voluntary and sustainable return to the land; and c) the need to reconstruct and preserve cultural identity. The field will then be open for the presentation of my conclusion regarding the instant request for interpretation of the Judgment, and an epilogue as a brief metajuridical reflection. I. Delimitation, Demarcation, Titling and the Return of Land as a Form of Reparation. 4. Firstly, I do not exempt myself from underlining the relevance that I attribute, in circumstances like those of the present Case of the Moiwana Community versus Suriname, with regard to the delimitation, demarcation and the return of land as a form of non-pecuniary reparation, ordered by the Court in the exercise of its inherent faculty, and in conformity with the terms of Article 63(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights. By means of delimitation, demarcation, titling, in the circumstances of the cas d’espèce, the effective protection (effet utile) of the rights guaranteed in Articles 21 and 22 of the American Convention is ensured. This latter is implicit under Article 33 (prohibition of refoulement) of the Convention on the Status of Refugees of 1951.