SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE A.A. CANÇADO TRINDADE 1. At last, the heinous “Operation Condor” as been brought to the attention of an international tribunal, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, to the extent that the instant case of Goiburú et al. v. Paraguay falls within its framework, and is a microcosm of it. In this judgment, the Court assessed the State’s acquiescence as a “positive contribution to these proceedings” (para. 52), and added that “delivering a judgment in which the truth of the facts and all aspects of the merits of the case and the corresponding consequences are determined, is a way of contributing to preserve the historical memory, to make reparation to the victims’ next of kin and to help avoid a repetition of similar acts” (para. 53). 2. Given the historical transcendence of this case, I am obliged to record, in this separate opinion, my reflections on the matter dealt with in the judgment that the Court has just adopted, to justify my position in this respect. In this separate opinion in the Case of Goiburú et al., I will cover the following points: (a) the criminalization of grave human rights violations; (b) the context of State terrorism: ‘Operation Condor’; (c) State crime revisited; (d) international responsibility aggravated by State crime; (e) elements for an approximation to the complementarity between international human rights law and international criminal law; (f) the concealment of State crimes in “Operation Condor”; (g) Condor redivivus: history repeats itself; and (h) the expansion of the substantial content of jus cogens. I. The criminalization of grave human rights violations 3. The facts of the Case of Goiburú et al. are extremely serious and fall within the framework of “Operation Condor,” which characterized an era of the most brutal repression and evil in the entire history of Latin America in general and of the Southern Cone in particular. In this judgment (paras. 40 and 41), the Court recalls that, in its brief answering the application, when acquiescing to “the factual considerations” described therein regarding the merits of the case, the defendant State indicated that it: “[…] acknowledged that, in the past, specifically during the regime of Alfredo Stroessner (1954-1989), grave human rights violations were perpetrated that must be investigated, punished and repaired adequately by the State. […] There is no doubt that [the] obligation to ensure rights was not complied with by the State during the 19541989 regime, because instead of organizing the Government so that it was capable of legally ensuring the free and full exercise of human rights, it was consolidated under a repressive system which systematically violated human rights. Nevertheless, it is important to mention that Paraguay, contrary to other countries of the Southern Cone, never adopted amnesty laws and recognized the nonapplicability of the prescription of grave human rights violations. The State affirms that these are examples of preventive measures designed to preclude the repetition of abuses such as those that occurred during the 1954-1989 dictatorship.” 4. The Court in turn, established as proven facts in this case that: “The forced disappearances of Agustín Goiburú Giménez, Carlos José Mancuello Bareiro and the brothers Rodolfo and Benjamín Ramírez Villalba have similar characteristics and refer to a single context, in which agents of the Paraguayan State illegally detained, maintained incommunicado, tortured and disappeared persons whose political activities were opposed to the regime of General Stroessner or who were identified as his enemies” (para. 61(14)).