JOINT PARTIALLY DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGES ROBERTO F. CALDAS AND EDUARDO FERRER MAC-GREGOR POISOT CASE OF HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENDER et al. v. GUATEMALA JUDGMENT OF AUGUST 28, 2014 (PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS, MERITS, REPARATIONS AND COSTS) 1. We issue this partially dissenting opinion to explain the reasons for which we disagree with the provisions of Operative Paragraphs 7 and 8 of the Judgment delivered on August 28, 2014, in the Case of Human Rights Defender et al. v. Guatemala (hereinafter “the Judgment”), by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American Court” or “the Court”). In these paragraphs, the Court states that there are not sufficient elements to declare the State’s failure to fulfill its obligation to protect the life of A.A., or to declare the violation of the political rights of A.A., recognized in Articles 4(1) and 23.1, respectively, of the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the American Convention” or “the Pact of San José of Costa Rica”). In this opinion, we will set forth the reasons why we consider that the Court should have ruled that Guatemala committed a violation of Articles 4(1) and 23(1) of the American Convention, to the detriment of the Human Rights Defender A.A. 2. On several occasions, the Court has referred to the violation of rights recognized in the American Convention to the detriment of human rights defenders 1, and has considered that said status is defined by the work carried out, regardless of whether that person is a private citizen or a public servant. 2 However, this is the first time that the Court has developed the concept of a human rights “defender”, in light of various international sources. 3 Indeed, as argued in the Judgment to which this opinion refers, human rights defenders are all those who promote and strive for the protection and realization of human rights and fundamental freedoms at the national and international levels. These activities must be carried out peacefully, and may be exercised intermittently or occasionally, since the condition or status of human rights defender is not necessarily permanent. 4 3. In this specific case, the Court considered that, in 2004, Mr. A.A., together with his daughter B.A., carried out activities that defined them as human rights defenders. 5 However, the majority of the Inter-American Court considered that it “d [id] not have 1 Cf. Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, of 2008. Series C No. 192; Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of April 3, 2009. Series C No. 196, and Case Luna López v. Honduras. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 10, 2013. Series C No. 269. 2 Cf. Case Luna López v. Honduras. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 10, 2013. Series C No. 269, para. 122. 3 Cf. para. 129 of the Judgment. 4 Cf. para. 129 of the Judgment. 5 Cf. paras. 130 to 132 of the Judgment.