before on this issue. I would note for the record that this is a space
for reflection, so my hope with this vote is that the new composition
of the Inter-American Court identifies with the need to deepen and
advance in this line of reasoning.
2. The importance of collective guarantee and the
possibility of using existing procedural tools to request
information from multiple States
The case under consideration has to do with Operation Condor,
organized and designed by the national security agencies of the
United States of America and implemented in collaboration with
various States in the region, but which in the specific facts of the
case involve Argentina, Chile, and Uruguay.
The Court has been developing the concept of collective guarantee
from the perspective of compliance with obligations and the role of
the community of States in guaranteeing human rights. Along
these lines, it has indicated that the collective guarantee
translates, then, into a general obligation to protect corresponding
to both the States Parties to the Convention and the Member States
of the OAS to ensure the effectiveness of these instruments, which
constitutes an erga omnes obligation. 18
I maintain that in this case, this perspective could have been
further developed through participation and cooperation between
States and the Court. Argentina alone assumes the satisfaction of
achieving truth, justice, and reparations despite the fact that the
human rights violations committed against the Julien Grisonas
family were coordinated and carried out by several States.
As can be evidenced in the case, the facts indicate coordinated
transnational and interstate actions. Shared responsibility is a
doctrine that encompasses “all situations that deal with the
allocation of responsibility and apportionment of liability in
Denunciation of the American Convention on Human Rights and the Charter of the Organization of American States
and the consequences for State human rights obligations (interpretation and scope of articles 1, 2, 27, 29, 30, 31,
32, 33 to 65 and 78 of the American Convention on Human Rights and 3(l), 17, 45, 53, 106 and 143 of the Charter
of the Organization of American States). Advisory Opinion OC-26/20, November 9, 2020. Series A No. 26.
18