interpretation, sequentially, of Article 26, of the norms of the Charter of the Organization of American States7 to which the said article alludes, and of the norms relating to the matter in hand in the Pact of San Salvador, all of which can help explain what I am seeking to substantiate in this text. A. Function of the separate opinion 4. This separate opinion is presented both as an exercise of a right 8 - also recognized by other international courts9 - and in compliance with an obligation to contribute to improving the understanding of the Court’s decisions based on the competence, whether contentious, 10 or advisory and non-contentious,11 that has been assigned to it and, consequently, to the development of international human rights law. 5. This dissent is also manifested with the hope that the Court will return to its position when it did not consider that the rights mentioned in Article 26 were justiciable. This hope rests on the fact that the Court’s judgment is only binding for the State Party to the case in which it is delivered,12 so that, for all the other States it is only a subsidiary source of 7 Hereinafter, the OAS. Supra, footnote 1. Hereinafter each time a footnote refers to an article, “art.” will be indicated, and it will be understood that it is an article of the American Convention on Human Rights, which, in turn, will hereafter be referred to as the Convention. 8 Art. 74(2) of the Rules of Court of the European Court of Human Rights: « Any judge who has taken part in the consideration of the case by a Chamber or by the Grand Chamber shall be entitled to annex to the judgment either a separate opinion, concurring with or dissenting from that judgment, or a bare statement of dissent.” 9 Art. 44 of the Statute of the African Court of Human and Peoples’ Rights: « if the judgment does not represent in whole or in part the unanimous opinion of the Judges, any Judge shall be entitled to deliver a separate or dissenting opinion.” Art. 57 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice: “If the judgment does not represent in whole or in part the unanimous opinion of the judges, any judge shall be entitled to deliver a separate opinion.” Art. 74(5) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: “The decision shall be in writing and shall contain a full and reasoned statement of the Trial Chamber's findings on the evidence and conclusions. The Trial Chamber shall issue one decision. When there is no unanimity, the Trial Chamber's decision shall contain the views of the majority and the minority. The decision or a summary thereof shall be delivered in open court.” Art. 30(3) of the Statute of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea: “If the judgment does not represent in whole or in part the unanimous opinion of the members of the Tribunal, any member shall be entitled to deliver a separate opinion.” Art. 62(3): “The jurisdiction of the Court shall comprise all cases concerning the interpretation and application of the provisions of this Convention that are submitted to it, provided that the States Parties to the case recognize or have recognized such jurisdiction, whether by special declaration pursuant to the preceding paragraphs, or by a special agreement.” 10 Art. 64: “1. The member states of the Organization may consult the Court regarding the interpretation of this Convention or of other treaties concerning the protection of human rights in the American states. Within their spheres of competence, the organs listed in Chapter X of the Charter of the Organization of American States, as amended by the Protocol of Buenos Aires, may in like manner consult the Court. 11 2. The Court, at the request of a member state of the Organization, may provide that state with opinions regarding the compatibility of any of its domestic laws with the aforesaid international instruments.” Art. 68: “1. The States Parties to the Convention undertake to comply with the judgment of the Court in any case to which they are parties. 12 2. That part of a judgment that stipulates compensatory damages may be executed in the country concerned in accordance with domestic procedure governing the execution of judgments against the state.” 2