CONCURRING OPINION BY JUDGE EDUARDO FERRER MAC-GREGOR POISOT CASE OF CRUZ SANCHEZ ET AL. V. PERU JUDGMENT OF APRIL 17, 2015 (Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs) I. INTRODUCTION 1. I would like to reassert my most vehement repudiation of any kind of terrorist violence, which “is harmful to individuals and to society as a whole,” as the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Court” or “the Inter-American Court”) has said in other cases against Peru. 1 Although the States are under obligation to ensure security and maintain public order in their territory,2 the fight against terrorism must be waged “within limits and according to procedures that preserve both public safety and the fundamental rights of the human person.”3 Accordingly, it is worth recalling that the Court’s primary function is to safeguard human rights, regardless of the circumstances.4 2. It must be stressed that the purpose of the instant case was not to establish the innocence or guilt of the members of the “Chavín de Huántar” command, of the security forces who took part in the hostage rescue operation, or of the MRTA members. Rather, the case addressed, among other things, whether the acts of the State conformed to the American Convention and whether or not extrajudicial execution had taken place in the process of the hostage rescue operation.” 5 The Court is not a criminal tribunal, and therefore, State responsibility under the Convention should not be confused with the criminal responsibility of private individuals.” 6 In this sense, the State’s international responsibility is based on its acts or omissions that violate the American Convention, and it “is a principle of international law that the State responds for the acts and omissions of any of Cf. I/A Court HR. Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 30, 1999. Series C No. 52, para. 89; Case of Lori Berenson Mejía v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2004. Series C No. 119, para. 91, and Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru. Interpretation of the judgment on merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 2, 2008. Series C No. 181, para. 42. 1 2 Para. 262 of the judgment. I/A Court HR. Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru, supra, para. 89; Case of Lori Berenson Mejía v. Peru, supra, para. 91, and Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru. Interpretation of the judgment on merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 42. 3 Cf. I/A Court HR. Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru, supra, para. 89, and Case of Lori Berenson Mejía v. Peru, supra, para. 91. 4 5 Para. 281 of the judgment. 6 Para. 280 of the judgment. 1