CONCURRING OPINION OF JUDGE HUMBERTO ANTONIO SIERRA PORTO 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) 1. With the customary respect for the majority decisions of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (hereinafter the Court), the purpose of this opinion is to point out some discrepancies in relation to the substantive analysis carried out by the Court on the international responsibility of the State of Peru (hereinafter ‘the State’ or ‘Peru’), in relation to the right of public officials to remain in office under conditions of equality and the admissible limits of political rights under Article 23(2) of the American Convention on Human Rights Humans (hereinafter the Convention or ACHR). In this sense, the vote complements the position already expressed in my partially dissenting vote in the case Casa Nina v. Peru. 1 2. In this case, the Court found the violation of the right of access to public office under general conditions of equality (Article 23(1)(c)) to be proven, considering that the decision of the Judiciary Council to dismiss Messrs. Cuya Lavy , Valenzuela Cerna, Díaz Alvarado and Ms. Rodríguez Ricse due to the results obtained in the evaluation and ratification process, arbitrarily affected their right to remain in office. The Court pointed out that due to the materially punitive nature of the ratification and evaluation process, the Judiciary Council was obliged to respect the guarantees of Article 8(1) of the Convention. However, in this case the Court found it proven that the national authority ignored the duty to substantiate reasoning and the right to know the content of the accusation in advance and in detail. Although I agree with this reasoning, I must note that the Court once again ignored the discussion on the scope of Article 23(2) ACHR in its relation to the right of public officials who exercise judicial or prosecutorial functions. Cf. Case of Casa Nina v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 24, 2020. Series C No. 419. Concurring and partially dissenting opinion of Judge Humberto Antonio Sierra Porto. 1