SEPARATE DISSENTING OPINION BY JUDGE EDUARDO VIO GROSSI, INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS, CASE OF CRUZ SÁNCHEZ ET AL V. PERU JUDGMENT OF APRIL 17, 2015 (Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs) INTRODUCTION This separate dissenting opinion1 on the above-referenced judgment 2 is being offered in response to the judgment’s denial of the preliminary objection lodged by the Republic of Peru concerning failure to comply with the rule on prior exhaustion of domestic remedies. 3 This opinion is based on the question of timing, that is, when this rule should apply. The view given in the judgment is that this can happen at the very latest when the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights4 issues its admissibility decision on the petition or communication5 that gives rise to the case.6 This separate opinion holds, by contrast, that the condition should already have been met when the motion is submitted, to be verified by the Commission both at the time of submission and when the decision on admissibility is delivered. In other words, while the judgment holds that compliance with this rule is a requirement for the petition to be admissible, the writer of this opinion believes that it should be at the time the motion is first presented, and is thus a condition for the case to proceed. Art. 66(2) of the American Convention on Human Rights, hereinafter the Convention: “If the judgment does not represent in whole or in part the unanimous opinion of the judges, any judge shall be entitled to have his dissenting or separate opinion attached to the judgment.” 1 Art. 24(3) of the Statute of the Court: “The decisions, judgments and opinions of the Court shall be delivered in public session, and the parties shall be given written notification thereof. In addition, the decisions, judgments and opinions shall be published, along with judges’ individual votes and opinions and with such other data or background information that the Court may deem appropriate.” Art. 65(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court: “Any Judge who has taken part in the consideration of a case is entitled to append a separate reasoned opinion to the judgment, concurring or dissenting. These opinions shall be submitted within a time limit to be fixed by the Presidency so that the other Judges may take cognizance thereof before notice of the judgment is served. Said opinions shall only refer to the issues covered in the judgment.” 2 Hereinafter the judgment. 3 Hereinafter the State. 4 Hereinafter the Commission. 5 Hereinafter the petition. 6 Para. 52 of the judgment. 1