3 11. Regarding the effects of this fact apropos of the prosecutability of the crime committed, I share the opinion of the Bolivian Constitutional Court, in judgment No. 1190/01-R of November 12, 2001, quoted in the judgment on reparations (para 107). That national Court refers to the illegal detention that the Judgment on the merits by the Inter-American Court views as a violation of the right to personal liberty, and it rules –quite rightly- that the time to bring prosecution for that criminal act has not lapsed, because if it is a permanent crime, calculation of that period can only begin the day that perpetration of the crime ceases. 12. It is worth stating that the characteristics of the deprivation of liberty suffered by Mr. Trujillo Oroza are those of forced disappearance, which can essentially be considered to be a complementary and qualified definition with respect to the basic criminal definition of deprivation of liberty. However, the Court has examined this matter under the juridical title of violation of the right to personal liberty, not as forced disappearance, taking into account that in Bolivia there was no criminal definition of disappearance, nor was there, as there is now, a commitment by the State to a specific international instrument on this subject. 13. Based what has been stated in the paragraphs above, it is my opinion that the Inter-American Court can and should decide on reparations derived from the facts considered in the acquiescence by the State and that correspond to the precepts mentioned in operative paragraph 2 of the judgment on the merits. This means, among other things: a) that the Court can –and must- order the State to investigate, prosecute, and punish those responsible for the illegal detention of José Carlos Trujillo Oroza, one that conceptually corresponds –as I mentioned before- to forced disappearance; and b) that the demarcations made in paragraphs 3 to 8 of this Concurring vote should be reflected in the judgment of the Court regarding various measures of reparation. 14. In the instant judgment, the Court has determined several compensations under the headings of reparation for pecuniary and non pecuniary damage. The amounts of such compensations was assessed and decided in fairness. I consider them adequate, precisely in light of fairness. For this reason, I have concurred with my vote to approve the amounts stated in the operative paragraphs of the judgment, notwithstanding the opinion I state in this Vote regarding the scope of competence of the Court in terms of time, defined by Bolivia’s becoming bound by the American Convention, in view of the respective accession, and the contentious jurisdiction of the Court, due to the respective declaration. Sergio García-Ramírez Judge Manuel E. Ventura-Robles Secretary