CONCURRING OPINION OF JUDGE EDUARDO VIO GROSSI, INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS, CASE OF CUYA LAVY ET AL. V. PERU, JUDGMENT OF SEPTEMBER 28, 2021, (Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs). This concurring vote is issued with the Judgment in the title 1, in order to record that the undersigned, sharing the indications in its Operative Point No. 1 2, does not do so by virtue of those indications, but according to his position supported by various other individual votes 3, which are ratified by this instrument, and must therefore be understood as an integral part thereof. Said position consists, fundamentally, among other considerations and in summary, in that domestic remedies must be exhausted by the complainant before the presentation of the corresponding petition before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights 4, which the State, in its answer to the request must argue, if so deemed, that this has not occurred and that it is precisely in light of both briefs’ indication, that the Commission must rule in order to determine the admissibility of the request, that is, as it was presented. Therefore, it is in this sense that the undersigned concurs to approve the aforementioned Operative Point No. 1 on the grounds that, having indicated in the respective petitions before the Commission that, as provided in Article 46(a) 5 of the American Convention on Human Rights 6, domestic remedies had previously been exhausted, the State, in its response brief to such complaints, did not invoke the breach of the requirement in 1 Hereinafter the Judgment. 2 Dismiss the preliminary objection for failure to exhaust domestic remedies raised by the State, in accordance with paragraphs 26 to 37 of this Judgment 3 Individual opinions of Judge Eduardo Vio Grossi on the matter: Dissenting, Case of Spoltore v. Argentina, Judgment of June 9, 2020; Dissenting, Case of López et al. v. Argentina, November 25, 2019; Concurring, Case of Gómez Viruela et al. v. Guatemala, of November 21, 2019; Dissenting, Case of the National Association of Unemployed and Retired Persons of the National Superintendence of Tax Administration (ANCEJUB-SUNAT) v. Peru, of November 21, 2019; Dissenting, Díaz Loreto et al. v. Venezuela, Judgment of November 19, 2019; Concurrent, Case of Terrones Silva et al. v. Peru, of September 26, 2018; Dissenting, Case of Amrhein et al. v. Costa Rica, April 25, 2018; Concurrent, Case of Yarce et al. v. Colombia, of November 22, 2016; Concurrent, Case of Herrera Espinoza et al. v. Ecuador, of September 1, 2016; Concurring, Case of Velásquez Paiz et al. v. Guatemala, of November 19, 2015; Dissenting, Case of the Santa Bárbara Peasant Community v. Peru, September 1, 2015; Dissenting, Case of Wong Ho Wing v. Peru, June 30, 2015; Dissenting, Case of Cruz Sánchez et al. v. Peru, of April 17, 2015; Dissenting, Case of Liakat Ali Alibux v. Suriname, of January 30, 2014, and Dissenting, Case of Díaz Peña v. Venezuela, June 26, 2012. 4 Hereinafter the Commission. “Admission by the Commission of a petition or communication lodged in accordance with Articles 44 or 45 shall be subject to the following requirements: a) that the remedies under domestic law have been pursued and exhausted in accordance with generally recognized principles of international law;” 5 6 Hereinafter, the Convention.