sizes, lengths, openings, styles, trimmings, necklines, decorations, jewelry, accessories, cosmetics, to express themselves aesthetically, and this merits special respect. 27. Despite my position that fully concurs with the judgment, with the exception of the two points described above, and my personal conviction that, when possible, differences that are merely conceptual should be avoided – which has not happened in this case – I was unable to remain silent concerning the majority decision expressed in the sixth operative paragraph that “it was not necessary to rule on the alleged violations of Articles 13 and 22 of the American Convention.” I have set out these additional considerations in the belief that it is essential to recognize that the said two articles were violated, to strengthen the effectiveness of freedom of expression through clothing and of freedom of movement, matters that the Court has not examined previously. Undoubtedly, the Court’s case law is the appropriate medium to undertaking the mission to declare and expand the content of the human rights contained in the American Convention. I attach this opinion in the hope that the national jurisdictions and the case law of the Court may soon evolve to recognize these rights that are so fundamental, promotors of real gender equality between women and men. Roberto F. Caldas Judge Pablo Saavedra Alessandri Secretary 6