CONCURRING AND PARTIALLY DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE HUMBERTO ANTONIO SIERRA PORTO INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS CASE OF CASA NINA V. PERU JUDGMENT OF NOVEMBER 24, 2020 (Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs) 1. With my usual respect for the majority decision of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Court”), the purpose of this opinion is to point out some discrepancies with the Court’s analysis of the merits in relation to the international responsibility of the State of Peru (hereinafter “the State” or “Peru”). Also, to explain my partial dissent with the third operative paragraph which declares violations of judicial guarantees, together with the right to remain in the post under general conditions of equality and the right to work of Julio Casa Nina. 2. On this basis, I will address the following points: (i) the practice of addressing the alleged violations in a single operative paragraph and the justiciability of the economic, social, cultural and environmental rights; (ii) the ambivalent interpretation of Article 23 in relation to the removal from office of public officials; (iii) the absence of a relationship between the notions of job stability and the criteria that condition provisional appointments: the term, and (iv) the scope of the concept of control of conventionality in relation to the obligation to amend provisions of domestic law and the concept of an effective judicial remedy. 3. This opinion supplements the position already expressed in my partially dissenting opinions in the cases of Lagos del Campo v. Peru,1 Dismissed Employees of PetroPeru et al. v. Peru,2 San Miguel Sosa et al. v. Venezuela,3 Cuscul Pivaral et al. v. Guatemala,4 Muelle Flores v. Peru,5 the National Association of Discharged and Retired Employees of the National Tax Administration Superintendence (ANCEJUB-SUNAT) v. Peru,6 Hernández v. Argentina7 and the Indigenous Communities of the Lhaka Honhat (Our Land) Association) v. Argentina;8 as well Cf. Case of Lagos del Campo v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 31, 2017. Series C No. 340. Partially dissenting opinion of Judge Humberto Antonio Sierra Porto. 1 Cf. Case of the Discharged Employees of PetroPeru et al. v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 23, 2017. Series C No. 344. Partially dissenting opinion of Judge Humberto Antonio Sierra Porto. 2 Cf. Case of San Miguel Sosa et al. v. Venezuela. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 8, 2018. Series C No. 348. Partially dissenting opinion of Judge Humberto Antonio Sierra Porto. 3 Cf. Case of Cuscul Pivaral et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 23, 2018. Series C No. 359. Partially dissenting opinion of Judge Humberto Antonio Sierra Porto. 4 Cf. Case of Muelle Flores v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 6, 2019. Series C No. 375. Partially dissenting opinion of Judge Humberto Antonio Sierra Porto. 5 Cf. Case of the National Association of Discharged and Retired Employees of the National Tax Administration Superintendence (ANCEJUB-SUNAT) v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 21, 2019. Series C No. 394. Partially dissenting opinion of Judge Humberto Antonio Sierra Porto. 6 Cf. Case of Hernández v. Argentina. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 22, 2019. Series C No. 395. Partially dissenting opinion of Judge Humberto Antonio Sierra Porto. 7 Cf. Case of the Indigenous Communities of the Lhaka Honhat (Our Land) Association v. Argentina. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 6, 2020. Series C No. 400. Partially dissenting opinion of Judge Humberto Antonio Sierra Porto. 8