SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE SERGIO GARCÍA-RAMÍREZ ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT ON HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE CASE OF VARGAS-ARECO V. PARAGUAY OF SEPTEMBER 26, 2006 1. In this Vote I will only address one aspect of the Judgment entered by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on the Case of Vargas-Areco v. Paraguay, to wit: the criminal relevance of the deprivation of life committed against Gerardo Vargas-Areco, which was revealed through two criminal proceedings; one before military authorities and another before the ordinary courts. 2. Undoubtedly, I believe -inasmuch the same manner as my colleagues, who signed this Judgment, - that the Court is not entitled, based on its ratione temporis jurisdiction in force as from the date when the State accepted the Court’s contentious jurisdiction, to rule on the deprivation of life committed against VargasAreco in violation of the provisions of the American Convention regarding this fundamental right. Therefore, I do not intent to analyze or qualify this fact based on the provisions of the Pact of San José. 3. In some cases, however, the Court has decided to make certain considerations regarding serious events brought to its attention. Upon doing so, the Court takes into account its function as a body entrusted with the protection of human rights, which is required to prevent the commission of illegal acts and to guide the conduct of States to that effect, even if it has no jurisdiction to thoroughly examine said events and, consequently, to include them in its decision. 4. In view of the foregoing circumstances, the Court only comments on the context in which the facts under its jurisdiction occurred. This is what happened regarding the incorporation of minors under the age of 18 into the armed forces and the aforementioned criminal relevance of the deprivation of life committed against the minor Gerardo Vargas-Areco, who was seventeen years old at the time of death, as set forth in the Judgment. 5. Upon expressing these concerns --which are fully explained in paragraphs 107 and 108 of the Judgment, -- the Court does not intent to address and solve an issue that falls exclusively under the State’s domestic jurisdiction. The competent courts of the State must examine the facts and render the appropriate Judgment, pursuant to applicable legislation and in accordance with its jurisdictional powers. 6. The Inter-American Court, which is responsible for performing a “control of compliance” based on the confrontation of the facts at stake and the provisions of the American Convention, cannot and does not intent –indeed, it never did- to become a new and last resort to hear a controversy originated in the domestic jurisdiction. The idea that the Inter-American Court constitutes a third or fourth instance, and eventually a jurisdiction of last resort, arises from a popular belief that is rooted in reasonable grounds; however, this idea has absolutely no connection with the jurisdiction of the Court, the legal conflict brought before it, the parties to the corresponding proceedings and the nature of international proceedings for the protection of human rights.