SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE EDUARDO VIO GROSSI ORDER OF THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS OF MAY 30, 2013 PROVISIONAL MEASURES WITH REGARD TO VENEZUELA CASE OF THE BARRIOS FAMILY With this separate opinion, the undersigned concurs with the adoption of the Order indicated above, reiterating, however, that, since in this case the judgment has been delivered that is “final and not subject to appeal,”1 which has effectively concluded the instant case, this has precluded the competence of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Court”) to order provisional measures relating or connected to it and, hereafter, it only correspond to the Court “to monitor” compliance with the said Judgment.2 In this regard, and if it is considered that the provisional measures ordered while the Court was “hearing” the case3 should continue following the said Judgment, what would have consequently been appropriate was to establish in the Judgment that the obligation of the State concerned to guarantee that “the injured party be ensured the enjoyment of his right or freedom that was violated”4 entailed the obligation to adopt the pertinent measures in order “to avoid irreparable damage to [the] persons”5 concerned in the case that had been decided and was no longer submitted to its consideration. In this way, the said measures would have been incorporated into the judgment that was “final and not subject to appeal,” so that they would not only share its obligatory nature, but also compliance with them could have been monitored as part of the judgment, and not, consequently, as if the latter had definitively concluded the case, or as if this was a different and even autonomous proceeding. 1 Article 67 of the American Convention on Human Rights. 2 Article 69 of the Rules of Procedure of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. See Concurring opinions of the undersigned to the Orders on compliance with judgment in the cases of Blanco Romero et al. v. Venezuela; Servellón Garcìa et al. v. Honduras, and Saramaka People v. Suriname, of November 2011. 3 Articles 61(2) and 62(3) of the Convention and 27(1) and 3 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure. 4 Article 63(1) of the Convention. 5 Article 63(2), idem.