Dissenting Opinion of Judge ad hoc Dr. Edgar Enrique Larraondo-Salguero Case: The White Van (Ana Elizabeth Paniagua Morales et al.) File: 10.154 I DISSENT from the respectable judgment of the majority of Judges for reasons which I will explain below: In procedural law the legality of forms is based on the manner and way in which the acts that make up the proceedings must be set forth, which is, in the time, place and order prescribed by law. This is valid for all types of proceedings, whatever their nature and jurisdiction, so as to avoid falling into procedural anarchy; for law lacking certainty ceases to be law. In the present case the applicable laws: the American Convention of Human Rights, the Rules of Procedure of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, and the Rules of Procedure and the Statute of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights contain provisions that invest the proceedings before the Court with solemn formalities. These formalities tend to assure respect for the principles of procedural equality and legal certainty. In this respect the Court in the Judgment of January 21, 1994, in the Caballero Delgado and Santana Case, paragraph 52, page 24 stated: Nevertheless, the Court must point out that there is no reason why the Commission should not faithfully follow the procedural rules. As it has said before and repeats today, although it is true that the object and purpose of the Convention can never be sacrificed to procedure, the latter is, in the interests of legal certainty binding on the Commission. (Emphasis by the Judge ad hoc) In the instant case, the State of Guatemala submitted as preliminary objections, extinguishment of the right to file. Both objections arise from the same causes: the passage of time, and the Commission's failure to comply with the three month period starting from the date of transmission of its report to the State of Guatemala, which it is granted by Article 51(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights, in order to submit the case for a decision of the Court. As a result, the Commission's right to file was extinguished, due to its delay in taking that procedural action. In view of the fact that the rule establishing limitations is applicable to substantive law, this objection applies equally when the right that the Commission attempts to assert has terminated in accordance with the Convention, due to the Commission's negligence in submitting a matter of merit for a decision of the Court during the period prescribed, a period of three months, according to the article cited above.